Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10 Formulated Feed For Tiger Grouper Apr 09
10 Formulated Feed For Tiger Grouper Apr 09
Magazine
Formulated feed for tiger grouper grow-out
Rachmansyah1, Usman1, Palinggi, N.N.1 and Williams, K.2
1. Research Institute for Coastal Aquaculture, Jl. Makmur Dg. Sitakka, No. 129, Maros, Sulawesi Selatan, 90512, Indonesia.
E-mail: [email protected]; 2. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, PO Box 120, Cleveland Qld. 4163, Australia.
In this controlled sea cage experiment, five diets were Except for the Moist diet P3 (which contained no trash fish)
compared when fed to juvenile tiger grouper over a 20-week where fish survival was 80%, survival of fish on all other diets
growing period. Three of the diets were moist diets that was excellent, 91 to 98%. However, there was no significant
examined the effect of reducing the amount of trash fish from (P >0.05) difference in fish survival between treatments. Fish
a maximum of 50% (on a dry matter basis) to zero; the fourth grew well on all diets with final weights ranging from 628 to
diet was a commercially manufactured dry pelleted grouper 714 g and significantly lower (P < 0.05) only for fish fed Moist
feed and the fifth diet was trash fish (Table 1). The critical diet P3. Specific growth rate (SGR), feed conversion ratio
chemical composition of these diets is shown in Table 2 while (FCR, on as-fed and dry matter basis) and protein efficiency
Table 3 gives the cost of these diets. ratio (PER) of the fish are shown in Figure 5. The fish fed
Moist diet P1, commercial diet (Dry P) and trash fish had high
The making of the moist pelleted diets followed standard and relatively similar (P >0.05) SGR, FCR (as dry matter) and
procedures: dry ingredients were thoroughly mixed together PER whereas these productivity measures were significantly
in a planetary mixer and fish oil slowly added while mixing worse for fish fed Moist P3; values for fish fed Moist Diet P2
continued. Trash fish was minced by passing it through a were intermediate.
meat mincer several times and then mixed in with the other
ingredients. For Moist P3 diet where no trash fish were used, Poorer growth and FCR of fish fed Moist Diet P3 may be due
sufficient water was added to form a dough of approximately to poor feed binding compared to the other moist pellet feeds,
50% dry matter content. The dough was cold extruded and consequently, resulted in high amounts of feed wastage.
through the meat mincer with the size of the die plate being Moreover, Moist Diet P3 also contained a higher inclusion of
varied in accordance with the increasing size of the fish being soybean meal compared to the other two moist diets. Since
fed. The freshly prepared moist feed was either fed directly soybean meal has a lower essential amino acid quality than
or held in a refrigerator for not more than 24 hours. These fishmeal2,3,4 and also contains anti-nutritional factors such
manufacturing procedures are illustrated in Figures 1 to 4. as anti-trypsin and high phytic acid5,6, these factors may
have contributed to the poorer performance of fish fed the
Fish for the experiment had been hatchery reared at the Moist diet P3. However, Rachmansyah et al.7 reported that
Gondol Mariculture Centre and transferred as fingerlings to soybean meal could be used in diets for humpback grouper,
RICA’s floating net cages at Awerange Bay, South Sulawesi. Cromileptes altivelis, at inclusion rates of up to 24% in plant
The fish were acclimated in a floating net cage for a couple based diets as fishmeal replacements without adverse effect
of months. During the acclimatisation, the fish were trained to provided the feed was supplemented with 0.075% phytase.
accept moist and dry pelleted feeds. A total of 240 fish were
stratified by weight into three groups of average weights of Although there were large differences between diets in the
234±11.3, 269±11.6 and 318±16.6 g. Five fish from each as-fed FCR, this difference was mostly due to differences in
group were randomly sampled for determination of initial dry matter content of the diet (Table 2). When expressed on
whole body chemical composition. The remaining 225 fish a similar dry matter basis, diets Moist P1, Dry P and trash
were equally distributed (15 fish/cage) within size groups to fish all had similar FCRs which were significantly better than
15 net cages of 1 x 1 x 2 (depth) m. Throughout the experi- fish fed Moist Diet P3; DM FCR of fish fed Moist Diet P2 was
ment, diets were carefully fed twice daily to apparent satiety. intermediate.
April-June 2009 31
Marine Finfish Aquaculture Network
Table 1. Formulation of the pelleted (P) moist diets (% dry matter) & trash fish. The initial and final whole body chemical
composition of fish is shown in Table
Ingredient Moist P1 Moist P2 Moist P3 Trash fish 4. No significant differences were
Trash fish1 50 25 0 100 observed between diets for any of the
Local fish meal 25 30 50 0 analysed components. However, over
Poultry offal meal 0 20 20 0 the course of the 20-week experiment,
Shrimp head meal 5 5 5 0 there was a uniform increase in lipid
Soybean meal 5 5 15 0 content of about 2.5% above that of the
Rice bran 3 3 0 0 initial fish for all diets. It is interesting to
Wheat flour 8.5 9.0 6.5 0 note that although the five diets varied
Fish oil 1.5 1 1.5 0 considerably in protein and energy
Vitamin premix2 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 contents (Table 2), the fish were able
Vitamin C 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 to accommodate these differences
Mineral premix3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 in nutrient supply, probably through
moderation of appetite, to end up with
1. Mostly pony fish; 2. Vitamin mix provided (mg/kg diet): Thiamin-HCl, 29.6; almost identical final body composition.
riboflavin, 29.6; Ca-panthothenate, 59.3; niacin, 11.9; pyridoxine-HCl, 23.7; There is evidence that fish do have
biotin, 3.6; folic acid, 8.9; inositol, 1185; p-aminobenzoic, 29.6; astaxanthin, 88.9; considerable homeostatic capacity to
menadione, 23.7; calciferol, 11.3; μ-tocopherol, 118.5; ascorbic acid, 888.8; maintain whole body chemical composi-
cyanocobalamin, 0.6; choline-HCL, 5485.5.; 3. Trace mineral provided (mg/kg tion within reasonably normal limits8.
diet): FeCl3.4H2O, 553,3; ZnSO4, 33,3; MnSO4, 22.5; CuSO4, 7,0; KI, 0.5; and
CoSO4.7H2O, 0,3. The least expensive feeds on an as-fed
basis were Moist Diet P3 (US$ 0.32/
Table 2. Chemical composition (dry matter basis) of the feeds. kg) and trash fish (US$ 0.42/kg) while
the most expensive was the commercial
Analysis Moist P1 Moist P2 Moist P3 Dry P1 Trash fish diet, Dry P (US$ 1.00/kg). However,
Crude protein (%) 47.4 48.9 50.4 50 55.2 when compared on a similar DM basis,
Digest. CP % 43.3 43.3 43.3 ? 52.5 the trash fish was the most expensive
Dig. energy (kJ/g)2 16.1 16.0 15.1 ? 18.6 (US$ 1.67/kg) with the commercial Dry
Total lipid (%) 10.8 11.6 11.4 10.5 10.8 P and Moist P1 diets being the next
Ash (%) 18.9 16.0 15.3 13.6 21.6 most expensive (US$ 1.09/kg and 1.07/
Fibre (%) 3.9 3.6 3.5 2.5 1.2 kg, respectively); the least expensive
diets were Moist P2 and P3 (US$ 0.77/
1. This was a commercial dry pelleted diet specified for grouper grow-out. kg and 0.66/kg, respectively). These
2. Derived from digestibility data determined for similar ingredients in previous feed costs are based on the ingredient
experiments and estimated for trash fish assuming 100% digestibility of protein. cost for the moist diets without any
account of including an on-farm manu-
Table 3. Dry matter (DM) content of the feeds as fed, and cost on an as-fed facture cost. However, the commercial
and DM basis. Dry P diet was the actual cost of the
diet as landed in South Sulawesi. When
Attribute Moist P1 Moist P2 Moist P3 Dry P1 Trash fish the feed cost to produce 1 kg of fish
Feed DM (% as fed) 56 54 49 92 25 weight gain was calculated (Table 5),
Cost (US$/kg as DM) 1.07 0.77 0.66 1.09 1.67 the most expensive feed was trash
Cost (US$/kg as fed) 0.60 0.42 0.32 1.00 0.42 fish (US$ 2.77/kg fish gain), the least
expensive was Moist P2 (US$ 1.72/kg
1. This was a commercial dry pelleted diet specified for grouper grow-out. fish gain) while Moist diets P1 and P3
and the commercial Dry P diet were all
Table 4. The whole body composition1 of tiger grouper fed different feed types. very similar (US$ 1.98, 1.90 and 2.00/kg
1. Expressed on a wet basis. a. Means in the same row with the same superscript letter do not differ (P >0.05).
Table 5. Feed cost based on feed conversion ratio (FCR) to produce 1 kg of tiger grouper fed different type and
formulation in floating net cage.
April-June 2009 33
Marine Finfish Aquaculture Network
Table 6. Taste panel assessment of cultured tiger grouper fed different feeds.
Table 7. The whole body chemical composition1of tiger grouper fed different feed types in the on-farm study.
On-farm comparison of feeding trash weight grew at 1.50-1.59%/day11. Although expressing growth
as SGR reduces the effect of fish size to some extent, it does
fish or compounded feeds not fully compensate for the relative change in metabolic
demand as fish increase in size12.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the feeding of
a moist feed, a commercial dry feed and trash fish to tiger As expected, the as-fed FCR of fish fed trash fish was much
grouper on a commercial grouper farm. The farm was situated worse than for the other diets that had a higher concentration
at Labuange Bay, Barru Regency at South Sulawesi (Figure of dry matter. When compared on a similar dry matter basis,
6). fish fed the trash fish had significantly better FCR than all
other diets with the Moist P1 diet being significantly worse
Methods than all other diets.
Three of the feeds that had been examined in the controlled The initial and final whole body chemical composition of
seacage experiment, namely Moist P1, Dry P and trash fish representative fish is shown in Table 7. There were no
were compared in this on-farm study. These feeds were significant treatment differences. However, during the course
made as described for the controlled seacage study and their of the experiment, there was a uniform increase in body lipid
formulation, chemical composition and cost are shown in from 6.8% to ±8%.
Tables 1 to 3, respectively. Tiger grouper were blocked into
two size groups of 240±22.7 g and 305±33.6 g and within Using the same feed costs as for the controlled seacage
these groups were randomly allocated to seacages of 2 x 2 x experiment (Table 3), the feed cost to produce 1 kg fish
2.5 (d) m at a stocking rate of 80-83 fish per cage. There were weight gain in the on-farm study is shown in Table 8. Essen-
two cage replicates per treatment. The fish had been on the tially, there was no difference in the tiger grouper production
Labuange Bay farm for several months and were accustomed cost between the three feed types although the Moist P1 diet
to being fed pelleted feed. During the 16-week study, fish was slightly more expensive US$2.78/kg fish gain compared
were fed to apparent satiety once daily. At the conclusion of to US$2.62-2.63/kg fish gain for the commercial dry pellet and
the experiment, a representative sample of three fish was trash fish. Based on these results, the commercial dry pellet
taken from each cage to determine whole body chemical diet is the best to use because of its storage and handling
composition. advantages.
It is recognised that tiger grouper previously fed trash fish 7. Rachmansyah, Usman, Makmur, Ahmad, T., 2005. Substitution of fishmeal
may not readily accept a dry pellet diet and may show little with soybean meal in humpback grouper, Cromileptes altivelis, juvenile
or no growth during this period of adaptation. This set back diets supplemented with phytase. Indonesian Fisheries Research Journal
can be avoided by using a moist diet as a transition between 11, 73-80.
feeding trash fish and dry pellet. The moist feed can be easily 8. De la Higuera M. 2002. Effects of nutritional factor and feed characteristics
made on-farm using simple and inexpensive equipment. on feed intake. In: Houlihan, D., Boujard, T., Jobling, M.(Eds.). Food Intake
Our work has shown that our Moist P2 formulation (Table 1) in Fish, pp. 269-296. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.
that contained 25% trash fish (on a DM basis) and 75% of 9. Usman, Rachmansyah, Kamaruddin, dan Makmur. 2005. Growth response
readily available dry ingredients was readily accepted by tiger of tiger grouper (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus) fed moist pellet for grow-out in
grouper that had previously been fed only trash fish. In our floating net cage. In: Rachmansyah, Sudaryono, A., Yuniharto D, Nadjib M.
controlled seacage experiment, fish fed Moist P2 survived and Purnomo (Eds.). Proceedings of the Aquaculture National Converence.
and grew equally as well as those fed trash fish. Moreover, Makassar, 23-25 November, 2005, pp. 40-43. Badan Penerbit Universitas
the feed cost of this moist diet to produce 1 kg fish gain was Diponegoro, Semarang. (In Indonesian).
60% less expensive than feeding the trash fish (US$ 1.72 10. Usman, Rachmansyah and Kamaruddin. 2006b. Subtitution of fish meal
versus 2.77/kg gain, respectively). with golden snail meal (Pomacea sp) in diets for grow-out of tiger grouper
(Epinephelus fuscoguttatus). Jurnal Riset Akuakultur 1(2), 161-170. (In
An independent taste panel assessment of the eating quality Indonesian).
of tiger grouper fed the moist, commercial dry or trash fish 11. Usman, Neltje N. Palinggi, Kamaruddin and Rachmansyah. 2006a.
feeds examined in the controlled seacage experiment found Utilization of soybean oil as fish oil substitution in diet for tiger grouper,
all diets to be highly acceptable. Fish fed the moist diet that Epinephelus fuscoguttatus grow-out. Aquacultura Indonesiana 7(3),
contained no trash fish (Moist P3) was considered to be 165-171. (In Indonesian).
slightly inferior to those fed other diets but this may have been 12. Jobling, M. 1994. Fish bioenergetics. Chapman & Hall, London. 309 pp.
due to these fish being thin and smaller than the other fish.
April-June 2009 35