Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:18:29.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurement and prediction of digestible energy values in feedstuffs for the herbivorous fish tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus Linn.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. Anderson ,
B. S. Capper  and
N. R. Bromage
J. Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Sciences, University of Aston, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET
B. S. Capper
Affiliation:
Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute, Chatham Maritime, Chatham, Kent ME4 4TB
N. R. Bromage
Affiliation:
Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Digestible energy (DE) values were measured in a selection of feedstuffs for the tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus Linn.) and used to develop equations for predicting DE values of a wider range of feedstuffs from chemical analyses. Preliminary work examined the influences of substitution level in a reference diet and adaptation over time on DE values for soya-bean meal. Length of adaptation period significantly affected DE values (P < 0.01), but substitution level, over the range 200–600 g soya-bean meal/kg reference diet, did not. The DE values of sixteen feedstuffs, thirteen derived from plant sources and three animal by-products, were subsequently determined. DE values for plant-derived feedstuffs were found to be higher than those quoted in the literature for trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), whereas DE values for animal-derived feedstuffs were lower than those for trout and pigs. It was concluded that energy values quoted in tables of feed composition for other species are inaccurate when used as proxy values for tilapia. Regression equations were therefore computed using data from the present study to provide a rapid means of predicting DE values of feedstuffs for tilapia. Equations using neutral-detergent fibre as an independent variable were found to predict DE values of plant-derived feedstuffs reliably. Where fibre values were not used as independent variables, available carbohydrate and crude protein (nitrogen × 6.25) were found to be useful predictors of DE values. These equations offer the possibility of reducing the need for time-consuming digestibility trials with tilapia when formulating least-cost production diets for this species.

Keywords

Digestible energy valuesNeutral-detergent fibreFishTilapia
Type
Digestibility of Nutrients
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , July 1991 , pp. 37 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1991

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1985). Digestible energy and carbohydrates in the nutrition of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus Linn.). PhD Thesis, University of Aston, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Anderson, J., Jackson, A. J., Matty, A. J. & Capper, B. S. (1984). Effects of dietary carbohydrate and fibre on the tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (Linn.). Aquaculture 37, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austreng, E. (1978). Digestibility determination in fish using chromic oxide marking and analysis of contents from different segments of the gastrointestinal tract. Aquaculture 13, 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, W. (1960). The determination of digestible carbohydrate in poultry foods. Analyst 85, 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. & Clegg, K. M. (1956). The metabolisable energy of poultry feeding stuffs in relation to their chemical composition. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 7, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, C. Y., Slinger, S. J. & Bayley, H. S. (1982). Bioenergetics of salmonid fishes: Energy intake, expenditure and productivity. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 73B, 25–41.Google Scholar
Crooke, W. M. & Simpson, W. E. (1971). Determination of ammonium in kjeldahl digests of crops by an automated procedure. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 22, 9–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drennan, P. & Maguire, M. F. (1970). Prediction of the digestible and metabolisable energy content of pig diets from their fibre content. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 9, 197–202.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fiber Analyses (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures and Some Applications). Agricultural Handbook of the United States Department of Agriculture no. 379. Washington, DC: Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Hilton, J. W., Atkinson, J. L. & Slinger, S. J. (1982). Maximum tolerable level, digestion and metabolism of d-glucose (Cerelose) in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) reared on a practical trout diet. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39, 1229–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, R. E. (1968). Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioural Sciences. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1973). Analysis of Agricultural Materials. Technical Bulletin no. 27. London: H. M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1975). Energy Allowances and Feeding Systems for Ruminants. Technical Bulletin no. 33. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. J., Cole, D. J. A. & Lewis, D. (1975 a). Energy values in pig nutrition. I. The relationship between digestible energy, metabolisable energy and total digestible nutrient values of a range of feedstuffs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84, 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. J., Cole, D. J. A. & Lewis, D. (1975 b). Energy values in pig nutrition. II. The prediction of energy values from dietary chemical analysis. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagase, G. (1964). Contributions to the physiology of digestion in Tilapia mossambica Peters: digestive enzymes and the effects of diets on their activity. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Physiologie 49, 270–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappas, C. J., Tiemeier, O. W. & Deyoe, C. W. (1973). Chromic sesquioxide as an indicator in digestion studies on channel catfish. Progressive Fish-Culturist 35, 97–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, B. H., Lucas, H. L., Pavlech, H. & Cipolloni, M. A. (1951). Estimation of the digestibility of feeds from their proximate composition. Journal of Animal Science 10, 706–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. A. K. & Thorpe, A. (1976). Nitrogen metabolism and trophic input in relation to growth in freshwater and saltwater Salmo gairdneri. Biological Bulletin 150, 139–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R. R. (1976). Metabolisable energy of feedstuffs for trout. Feedstuffs 48 no. 23, 16–21.Google Scholar
Smith, R. R., Peterson, M. L. & Allred, A. C. (1980). Effect of leaching on apparent digestion coefficients of feedstuffs for Salmonids. Progressive Fish-Culturist 42, 195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1972). Statistical Methods, 6th ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Stickney, R. R. & Lovell, R. T. (1977). Nutrition and feeding of channel catfish. Southern Cooperatives Series Bulletin 218, 1–67.Google Scholar
Stickney, R. R. & Shumway, E. E. (1974). Occurrence of cellulase activity in the stomach of fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 6, 779–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ufodike, E. B. C. & Matty, A. J. (1983). Growth responses and nutrient digestibility in mirror carp (Cyprinus carpio) fed different levels of cassava and rice. Aquaculture 31, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyke, J. M. V. & Sutton, D. L. (1977). Digestion of duckweed (Lemna sp.) by the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella). Journal of Fish Biology 11, 273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar