Volume: 01, Issue: 02, Page: 18-22

Red seaweed, Gracilaria sp. a source of ingredients for the formulation of fish feed

Department of Fisheries, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi- 6205, Bangladesh

*Corresponding authors

Email address: m.rahman77@ru.ac.bd (Md. Mahabubur Rahman)

doi: https://doi.org/10.69517/jars.2024.01.02.0004 

 

Share:

Received:
22 October 2024

Revised:
29 November 2024

Accepted:
01 November 2024

Published:
10 December 2024

Highlights

  • Utilization of alternative feedstuffs for aquaculture practice is relevant to improve feed quality.
  • Seaweeds are available and valuable sources of protein, fatty acids, vitamins, macro-and trace elements.
  • 10% seaweed, Gracilaria, supplementation in the fish feed improved the growth and palatability of H. molitrix.
  • Gracilaria into the fish feed has no adverse effect on the carcass composition of H. molitrix

Abstract

Recent research on aquafeed has focused on using low-cost and nutrient-rich non-conventional feedstuffs. So, seaweeds can be considered a non-conventional feed ingredient for the aquafeed industry. This study evaluated the potentiality of selected seaweed (Gracilaria sp.) enriched feeds by assessing their effects on the growth performance, feed utilization, carcass composition, and palatability of Hypophthalmichthys molitrix. The study was conducted for 90 days under four treatments in 12 cages set in a pond at the Department of Fisheries, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh. Four test feeds were made where one was without seaweed designed as SW0 (control) and three were enriched with seaweed (Gracilaria sp.) at the rates of 5, 10, and 15%, which were designed as SW1, SW2, and SW3, respectively. Sampling was conducted biweekly to evaluate weight increase. At the end of the study, the mean weight gain (MWG), specific growth rate (SGR), survival rate, and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were estimated using standard methods. In addition, carcass composition (protein, lipid, carbohydrate, moisture, and ash content) and palatability indicators (flavor, taste, and texture) of the fish were evaluated by following AOAC and organoleptic sensory methods. Significantly higher MWG and SGR were found in the fish of SW2, followed by the fish of SW1 and SW0, and lower in SW3, whereas the FCR was found better in the fish of SW2 compared to other treatments. The results of chemical analysis showed no significant difference in carcass composition but relatively higher carcass protein and lipid recorded in the fish of SW2. For the palatability test, a significantly higher organoleptic score was recorded in the fish of SW2 while lower in SW0. The outcomes of the study suggested that including 10% Gracilaria sp. can be effective in diets for H. molitrix with no negative results on the growth, carcass composition, and palatability indicators.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Gracilaria, Weight gain, Feed utilization, Carcass quality, Organoleptic score

1. Introduction

Fish has high nutritional value because of having rich contents of protein, amino acid composition, and fatty acids (Ahmed et al., 2022). The production of protein-rich foods has significant implications for national food security. By promoting aquaculture, it can be raised significantly. The most crucial element for increasing aquaculture output and profitability is feed. In fact, aquaculture production heavily depends on the external aquafeeds or nutrients supply to the aquaculture system (Tacon and Metian, 2015). Aquafeed production has been widely recognized as one of the fastest-expanding agricultural industries in the world (Ali, 2024).

Fishmeal, a commonly used feed ingredient, is currently scarce and expensive, while the plant feed ingredients (soybean meal and mustard oil cake meal) contain anti-nutritional elements that have increased interest in seeking alternative feedstuffs for aquaculture feeding. Recent research in aquaculture has focused on the use of environmentally friendly and nutrient-rich non-conventional feedstuffs that contain necessary amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals. Therefore, the exploration and utilization of available alternative feedstuffs for aquaculture is more relevant to reduce feed costs as well as to improve the quality of feed. In this context, nutrient-rich seaweeds can be considered a non-conventional feed ingredient for aquafeeds (Mwendwa et al., 2023a). They can be a sustainable and suitable alternative ingredient in aquafeeds considering their nutrient profiles (Costa et al., 2021; Panteli et al., 2024).

Seaweeds are typically found in large quantities in the near-shore marine habitats of all the world's oceans. The coasts of Saint Martin Island, Chittagong, and Cox's Bazar provided reports of 200 marine algal species, or seaweeds including Hypnea, Gracilaria, Gelidium, Enteromorpha, Halimeda, Padina, Dictyota, Caulerpa, Hydroclathrus, Sargassum, Kappaphycus, and Porphyra which have substantial commercial importance (Islam et al., 2022). Sarkar et al. (2016) also reported fourteen commercially important seaweed taxa, among which Hypnea, Caulerpa, Enteromorpha, Gracilaria contain high levels of essential nutrients. Seaweeds are a good source of protein, fatty acids, vitamins, fiber, macro- and trace elements, and significant bioactive substances (Penalver et al., 2020). Gracilaria sp. contains high crude protein, amino acid profiles, β-carotene, phosphorus, and low crude lipid and heavy metals (Aziz et al., 2021). Seaweeds' diverse nutritional qualities have led to research into them in an effort to find new, natural sources of useful components for animal foods.

However, several researchers have used seaweeds as alternative ingredients in diets for different fish species and reported positive effects on growth, feed utilization, protein deposition, disease resistance, and carcass quality of fish (Hussein, 2017; Xuan et al., 2019; Nur et al., 2020; Mwendwa et al., 2023b). Still, there are currently few studies conducted in Bangladesh on the potentiality of seaweeds as feed ingredients for carp fish. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the potentiality of selected seaweed (Gracilaria sp.) enriched feeds by assessing their effects on the growth, carcass composition, and palatability of H. molitrix as a candidate aquaculture species in Bangladesh.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Ethical approval

No animals were harmed during the experiment. All procedures performed in this investigation were in accordance with the ethical guidelines provided by the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) for researchers.

2.2 Study area

The study was carried out in 12 cages placed in a research pond located at the northern side of the Faculty of Fisheries, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh (Figure 1) for 90 days (3 months) from June to August 2022. The cages (each 2.72 m3) were made of iron rods and covered by a special synthetic nylon knotless net with a 5 mm mesh size with an opening for supplying feed and handling fish during sampling.


jars 0004 fig1
Figure 1. Map of the research pond location.

2.3 Collection and preparation of seaweeds

The selected seaweed (Gracilaria sp.) was collected from the coast of St. Martin Island, Cox’s Bazar. At first, the collected seaweed was soaked for 24 hours in a solution containing 5 g of maize-cob ash (potassium hydroxide) diluted at a concentration of 5 g/l. Then, it was boiled in water for 5 minutes at 100 °C. Treated seaweed was also dried to a consistent weight following each treatment. Before use, the dried seaweed was crushed and sieved using a 2 mm mesh screen, and kept in a polyethylene bag.


2.4 Experimental design

Four types of feed were used in this trial as four treatments (Table 1). ACI Group's commercial carp grower feed treated the control (SW0). Three test feeds (SW1, SW2, and SW3) were formulated by using different levels of dried seaweed with the conventional feed ingredients. A fully randomized design was used to assign the treatments to the cages.


Table 1. Design of experimental cage setup.


2.5 Feed formulation

For the formulation of three test feeds, conventional feed ingredients (rice polish, mustard oil cake, fish meal, wheat bran, molasses, soybean oil, and vitamin premix) were used along with the selected seaweed (Table 2). The proximate compositions of these ingredients were evaluated, and the formulation was done using spreadsheet analysis. The protein content of the formulated feed was targeted to match that of the control feed (determined earlier) to obtain an iso-protein diet across all the treatments. For the preparation of feed, the required amount of each ingredient was weighed and mixed properly with the optimum amount of water to form the dough. A pelleting machine was used to extrude the dough and turn it into pellets. After being sun-dried, the pellets were sealed in polythene bags and kept at 4 °C for storage. The chemical analysis of the test feeds was done through ensuing standard methods (AOAC, 2005), and the data are shown in Table 3. The values obtained through chemical analysis of the test feeds showed no significant variation.


Table 2. Dietary inclusion level of different ingredients in three formulated feeds.


Table 3. Proximate composition of the experimental feeds.


2.6 Experimental fish and feeding of fish

One hundred thirty fry of H. molitrix were collected from a nearby fish farm. Fish were transported in a van utilizing a scientifically appropriate method, equipped with an aeration system. The fish were adapted to the experimental environment for seven days before the beginning of the main study. Throughout this period, fish were given a commercial carp diet at the rate of 5% of their body weight. Following the acclimation phase, ten fish were transferred into each cage. Every day, the feeds were given twice, at 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., at a rate of 5% (2.5% + 2.5%) of the body weight each time. Throughout the study duration, fish were weighed biweekly, and the feed quantity was adjusted correspondingly.

2.7 Monitoring of water quality parameters

Throughout the study period, various physicochemical parameters of water, including temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, alkalinity, carbon dioxide (CO2), and ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N) were checked biweekly. The temperature was recorded by using a Celsius thermometer. The pH was checked by a digital pH meter. DO, CO2, total alkalinity, and NH4-N concentrations were determined by using the HACH Kit (Model: DR/2010). Throughout the study period, the values of physicochemical parameters of water were within the appropriate range for aquaculture and didn't show any notable variations across the treatments.

2.8 Sampling for growth study

On the first day of the experiment, the first sampling was completed, and the weight of the fish in each cage was noted. Then, it was done every two weeks to keep data on the fish's weight. An electronic balance was used to weigh fish with a 0.1 g precision.

2.9 Analysis of growth performance and feed utilization

Growth performance and feed utilization by mean weight gain (MWG), specific growth rate (SGR), survival rate (SR), and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were calculated by using the following formula,

jars 12 0004 formula
2.10 Analysis of carcass composition

Following the trial, three fish were collected from each cage. After that, muscle from various body parts was taken out and refrigerated for storage. To determine the protein, lipid, carbohydrate, moisture, and ash content, the fish muscle samples were taken and analyzed according to the standard method (AOAC, 2005).

2.11 Palatability test

For the palatability test, fish flesh in the form of loins from each treatment was cooked in a traditional boiling method. The fish loins from each treatment were marked and cooked together to avoid any cooking bias. After consuming the cooked fish, selected expert panelists gave their scores blindly on the fish’s flavor, taste, and texture following the specific structured scaling system (Table 4) described by Huss (1995).


Table 4. Organoleptic/sensory scoring scale for palatability test.


2.12 Statistical analysis

Using SPSS-21 software (SPSS, USA), statistical analysis was conducted through one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's multiple-range test. To find the significant difference values, P=0.05 was applied.

3. Results

3.1 Growth performance and feed utilization of the fish

The result showed that the fish of SW2 had the considerably greatest MFW, MWG, and SGR, followed by the fish of SW1 and SW0, and the lowest in the fish of SW3, while there was no significant difference among the fish of SW0, SW1, and SW3. The highest value of FCR was found in the fish of SW0, while the lowest value was found in the fish of SW2, but no significant difference was found among the fish of SW0, SW1, and SW3. During the study period, no mortality was shown in the fish from different treatments (Table 5).


Table 5. The mean values of growth parameters under four treatments.


3.2 Carcass composition of the fish

The carcass crude protein content of fish from each treatment did not differ significantly, while the fish from SW2 were considered to have a comparatively greater value than the fish from the other treatments. The crude lipid and carbohydrate contents in the fish of SW2 and SW3 were relatively higher than the fish of other treatments.


Table 6. Carcass composition of the fish under four treatments.


Estimated carcass ash and moisture contents in the fish among the treatments also showed no significant variation but relatively higher ash content was recorded in the fish of SW2 and lower in the fish of SW1, whereas the higher moisture content in the fish of SW0 and the lower in the fish of SW2 (Table 6).

3.3 Palatability of cooked fish flesh

The organoleptic sensory scores were collected from a selected panel of consumers to evaluate the palatability of the cooked fish flesh. Significantly higher scores of flavor, taste, and texture were obtained in the fish of SW2 and lower in the fish of SW0, but the fish between SW1 and SW3 showed no significant difference. The sum of the scores of three organoleptic criteria (flavor, taste, texture) was also higher in the fish of SW2 and lower in the fish of SW0 (Table 7).


Table 7. Organoleptic score on cooked fish flesh under four treatments.


4. Discussion

4.1 Growth performance and feed utilization

To determine the potential impact on growth and feed consumption of H. molitrix, seaweed (Gracilaria sp.) was added to the feed at several doses. As per the study's findings, the fish fed 10% seaweed-enriched feed (SW2) showed the highest weight gain, specific growth rate, and lower feed conversion ratio, while the fish fed 15% seaweed-enriched feed (SW3) showed the lowest mean weight gain, specific growth rate, and higher feed conversion ratio. The growth data indicated that the addition of a certain level of seaweed in the feed enhanced the growth of the fish. The finding of the present study was more or less comparable with the report of Al-Asgah et al. (2016), who found that C. gariepinus may consume up to 10% of G. arcuata in their diets. They also found that the fish were fed a diet containing up to 20% and 30% of this ingredient had lower growth and feed utilization. Hussein (2017) stated that the diets of Nile tilapia can be supplemented with up to 5% seaweed without causing any negative effects or anatomical abnormalities. Xuan et al. (2019)found that feeding juvenile red sea bream (Pagrosomus major) a diet containing 3% G. lemaneiformis could enhance their growth and feed utilization. They also reported that feeding this fish with a diet containing 15% G. lemaneiformis was also feasible because it did not affect growth performance. In another study by Xuan et al. (2013), no reduced growth was found in juvenile black sea bream (Acanthopagrus schlegelii) fed diets based on Gracilaria lemaneiformis even at the 15% inclusion level. Additionally, they noted that growth performance was noticeably low when the addition of Gracilaria sp. reached 20%. Nur et al. (2020) observed that Nile tilapia given 30% seaweed meal showed positive growth. The findings of the previous reports are more or less supportive of the present study. It was also observed that the rate of seaweed included in fish diets may be determined by the fish's feeding behavior as well as the species of seaweed.


4.2 Carcass composition

The results of carcass analysis of the fish fed with the feed enriched with different doses of Gracilaria sp. and the control feed showed no significant differences in the body composition among the treatments. This finding was in accordance with the results obtained by Sotoudeh and Jafari (2017), who reported that supplementation of the experimental diets with G. pygmaea did not affect the carcass composition of juvenile rainbow trout. Though carcass lipid content showed no significant difference among the treatments, relatively higher lipid content was found in the fish of SW2 and SW3 (where 10 and 15% seaweed-enriched feed were used). This finding contrasted with that of Valente et al. (2006), who found that at the inclusion level of 5–100% Gracilaria diets, the lipid content of juvenile European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) lowered which might be due to the physiological variation of the fish.

The carcass ash and moisture contents also showed no significant difference among the treatments but relatively higher moisture contents were found in SW0 (where control feed was used). The finding was also showed that increasing seaweed percentage has a relatively inverse relation to moisture contents in the carcass composition. Ahmed et al. (2022) reported that the moisture and lipid content of fish muscle are inversely correlated, as indicated in the current study, where increased lipid content was observed in the fish of SW2 and SW3, corresponding to substantially lower moisture content. The findings of the current study reveal that the addition of dietary Gracilaria sp. into fish feed has no negative effect on the carcass composition of H. molitrix.


4.3 Palatability

According to the overall organoleptic score, the fish flesh of SW2 had the highest score and was ranked first, followed by the fish flesh of SW3 in second place, SW1 in third place, and SW0 in fourth place. The results of the palatability test of the cooked fish flesh indicated that the inclusion of Gracilaria sp. in the fish feed can modify the palatability indicators (flavor, taste, and texture) and the fish fed with 10% seaweed enriched feed had the highest scores for taste, texture, and flavor. This puts the fish fed 10% seaweed enriched feed under the score "10" on the score table, indicating that they had better fresh fish flavor, taste, and texture quality, i.e., most palatable compared to the fish groups fed with other test feeds used in this study. This may be the result of the fish having relatively higher lipid content in their carcasses (Table 6). Food texture and flavor are known to be influenced by lipids, which can be found in foods as free oil or fat scattered throughout a solid matrix or as emulsions. By generating volatile oxidation products and transferring the flavor of short-chain free fatty acids, lipids enhance the flavor of food (Shahidi and Weenen, 2005). Nevertheless, there are hardly any studies on how the seaweed meal affects the palatability of fish flesh, and more investigation is needed to reach a firm conclusion.

5. Conclusions

The study concluded that the addition of a certain level (10%) of Gracilaria sp. in the feed enhanced growth performance, feed conversion ratio, and overall palatability of H. molitrix without any adverse effects.

Acknowledgements

We thankfully acknowledged financial support for this study from the Rajshahi University Research Grant. The authors are also thankful to the authority of the Aquaculture Laboratory, Bangladesh Agriculture University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh, for their technical support.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

Informed consent statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Md. Jeshan Ali and Md. Mahabubur Rahman; Data collection: Md. Jeshan Ali and Mst. Khadiza Khatun; Data analysis: Md. Risad Sarkar and Adnan Shabbir; Figure preparation: Md. Risad Sarkar. All authors critically reviewed the article and agreed to submit the final version of the article.

References

Ahmed I, Jan K, Fatma S and Dawood MAO, 2022. Muscle proximate composition of various food fish species and their nutritional significance. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 106: 690–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13711

Al-Asgah NA, El-Sayed MY, Abdel-Wahab A, Abdel-Warith and Faozi SS, 2016. Evaluation of red seaweed Gracilaria arcuata as dietary ingredient in African catfish, Clarias gariepinus. Saudi Journal of Biological Science, 23(2): 205–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2015.11.006

Ali S, 2024. The boom of feed industry. The Business Standard. Available: https://www.tbsnews.net/supplement/boom-feed-industry-863831

AOAC, 2005. The official method of analysis. 18th (Eds.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists International. Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Aziz A, Hassan A, Roy SK, Haque MZ, Saha BK, Ahmed S, Rahman M, Mohanta LC and Mashuk OF, 2021. Potential of Gracilaria tenuistipitata var. liuigrown in Nuniachara, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 56: 39–46. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjsir.v56i1.52694

Costa M, Cardoso C, Afonso C, Bandarra NM and Prates JAM, 2021. Current knowledge and future perspectives of the use of seaweeds for livestock production and meat quality: a systematic review.  Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 105(6): 1075–1102.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13509

Huss HH, 1995. Quality and quality changes in fresh fish. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 348, FAO, Rome, Italy. https://www.fao.org/4/v7180e/v7180e00.htm  

Hussein EESM, 2017. Effect of seaweed supplemented diets on Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus performance. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 5(2): 205–210.

Islam MS, Sobuj MKA, Islam HMR, Hosain ME and Rashid MH, 2022. Present status of seaweed resources in Bangladesh: a review on the diversity, culture methods and utilization. Bangladesh Journal of Zoology, 50(3): 283–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjz.v50i3.65537

Mwendwa R, Wawire M and Kahenya P, 2023a.  Effect of dietary supplementation with seaweed on growth and nutritional quality of Nile tilapia. Journal of Agriculture Science and Technology, 22(2): 100–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jagst.v22i2.8 

Mwendwa R, Wawire M and Kahenya P, 2023b. Potential for use of seaweed as a fish feed ingredient: A review. Journal of Agricultural Science, 15(2): 96. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jas.v15n2p96

Nur A, Hossain MF, Hasan MN, Zannat S, Chakroborty K and Rafiquzzaman SM, 2020.  Effect of selected seaweed powder as a fish feed on growth and immune system of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 8(4): 24–30.

Panteli N, Kousoulaki K, Antonopoulou E, Carter CG, Nengas I, Henry M, Karapanagiotidis IT and Mente E, 2024. Which novel ingredient should be considered the “Holy Grail” for sustainable production of finfish aquafeeds? Reviews in Aquaculture, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12969

Penalver R,  Lorenzo JM,  Ros G,  Amarowicz R,  Pateiro M and Nieto G, 2020. Seaweeds as a functional ingredient for a healthy diet. Marine Drugs, 18(6): 301. https://doi.org/10.3390/md18060301

Sarkar MSI, Kamal M, Hasan MM and Hossain MI, 2016. Present status of naturally occurring seaweed flora and their utilization in Bangladesh. Research in Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, 3: 203-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/ralf.v3i1.27879

Shahidi F and Weenen H, 2005. Food lipids: chemistry, flavor, and texture. American Chemical Society, Washington DC USA.

Sotoudeh E and Jafari M, 2017. Effects of dietary supplementation with red seaweed, Gracilaria pygmaea, on growth, carcass composition and hematology of juvenile rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture International, 25: 1857–1867. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10499-017-0158-6

Tacon AGJ and Metian M, 2015. Feed matters: Satisfying the feed demand of aquaculture. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 23: 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2014.987209

Valente LMP, Gouvenia A, Rema P, Maltos J, Gomes EF and Pinto IS, 2006. Evaluation of three seaweeds Gracilaria bursa-pastoris, Ulva rigida and Gracilaria cornea as dietary ingredients in European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus Labrax) juveniles. Aquaculture, 252: 85–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.11.052  

Xuan X, Li W, Zhu W and Wang S, 2019. Effects of different levels of macroalga Gracilaria lemaneiformis on growth performance and feed utilization on the red sea bream, Pagrosomus major. Aquaculture, 31: 3213-3222. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10811-019-01787-9

Xuan X, Wen X, Li S, Zhu D and Li Y, 2013. Potential use of macro-algae Gracilaria lemaneiformis in diets for the black sea bream, Acanthopagrus schlegelii, juvenile. Aquaculture, 412–413: 167–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.07.022

 

How to cite

Ali MJ, Khatun MK, Sarkar MR, Shabbir A and Rahman MM 2024. Red seaweed, Gracilaria sp. a source of ingredients for the formulation of fish feed. Journal of Aquatic Research and Sustainability, 1(2): 18-22. https://doi.org/10.69517/jars.2024.01.02.0004

CrossMark Update
CROSSMARK Color horizontal
Article Metrics

Table 7. Organoleptic score on cooked fish flesh under four treatments.

Organoleptic criteria

Treatments

SW0

SW1

SW2

SW3

Flavor

7.97±0.20c

8.12±0.20b

8.79±0.19a

8.19±0.17b

Taste

7.79±0.13c

7.97±0.23b

8.82±0.13a

8.03±0.16b

Texture

7.63±0.13c

8.13±0.23b

8.48±0.15a

8.22±0.17b

Total Score

23.47±0.18c

24.21±0.24b

26.09±0.19a

24.44±0.23b

Rank

4th

2nd

1st

3rd

* Fish given control feed was assigned to SW0, while fish given seaweed-enriched feed at 5, 10, and 15% were assigned to SW1, SW2, and SW3, respectively. A significant difference between values in the same row with different superscripts is indicated by P=0.05.

Table 6. Carcass composition of the fish under four treatments.

Parameters (%)

Treatments

SW0

SW1

SW2

SW3

Protein

15.15±0.39a

15.13±0.42a

15.47±0.39a

15.35±0.23a

Lipid

2.19±0.19a

2.21±0.12a

2.45±0.11a

2.26±0.13a

Carbohydrate

3.11±0.32a

3.19±0.34a

3.46±0.57a

3.38±0.53a

Ash

3.21±0.21a

3.12±0.16a

3.35±0.15a

3.23±0.19a

Moisture

75.84±0.76a

75.53±0.85a

74.39±0.71a

74.80±0.91a

* Fish given control feed was assigned to SW0, while fish given seaweed-enriched feed at 5, 10, and 15% were assigned to SW1, SW2, and SW3, respectively. A significant difference between values in the same row with different superscripts is indicated by P=0.05.

Table 5. The mean values of growth parameters under four treatments.

Parameters

Treatments

 

SW0

SW1

SW2

SW3

Initial weight (g)

253.16±12.56a

252.94±14.77a

253.76±13.78a

253.91±11.09a

Final weight (g)

478.56±24.33b

484.96±27.73b

509.64±23.37a

470.82±23.71b

Weight gain (g)

223.50±13.26b

233.1±17.86b

251.33±13.98a

216.91±21.63b

SGR (%)

0.77±0.05b

0.80±0.06b

0.88±0.04a

0.73±0.06b

FCR

2.49±0.11b

2.45±0.11b

2.19±0.14a

2.57±0.14b

* Fish given control feed was assigned to SW0, while fish given seaweed-enriched feed at 5, 10, and 15% were assigned to SW1, SW2, and SW3, respectively. A significant difference between values in the same row with different superscripts is indicated by P=0.05.

Table 4. Organoleptic/sensory scoring scale for palatability test.

Palatability indicators

Score

Flavor

Taste

Texture

Species-specific

Meaty flavor

Firm/elastic

10

Fresh fish

Sweet

Firm/springy

8

Slightly fishy or slightly sour

Slightly fishy

Less firm

6

Sour and stale

Slightly sour/some off flavor

Softer

4

Strong ammonia

Slightly rotten

Very soft

2

Rotten smell

Spoiled

Slippery

0

 

Table 3. Proximate composition of the experimental feeds.

Parameters (%)

Treatments

SW0

SW1

SW2

SW3

Moisture

13.92±1.46a

14.27±1.33a

13.94±0.99a

14.13±1.34a

Lipid

5.71±0.63a

6.29±0.49a

6.18±0.86a

5.83±0.76a

Protein

25.98±3.69a

26.11±3.35a

26.16±2.17a

26.06±3.31a

Ash

10.16±1.27a

9.57±1.15a

9.24±1.14a

10.31±1.17a

Carbohydrates

36.52±3.67a

38.22±2.25a

37.23±3.08a

37.19±3.12a

 

Table 2. Dietary inclusion level of different ingredients in three formulated feeds.

Ingredients (%)

Test feeds

SW1

SW2

SW3

Rice polish

25

20

18

Mustard oil cake

35

36

32

Fish meal

15

14

15

Wheat bran

15

15

15

Seaweed

5

10

15

Molasses

2.5

2.5

2.5

Soya-bean oil

2

2

2

Mineral premix

0.5

0.5

0.5

 

Table 1. Design of experimental cage setup.

Treatment

Cage No.

Feed

SW0

C1, C10 and C5

Feed without Gracilaria sp. as control

SW1

C7, C3 and C12

Feed with 5% Gracilaria sp. inclusion

SW2

C2, C9 and C6

Feed with 10% Gracilaria sp. inclusion

SW3

C8, C4 and C11

Feed with 15% Gracilaria sp. inclusion

 

[stm-calc id="1576"]