IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Result
Following 5 weeks of experiment, juvenile of patin fed with HFM and LFM diets survival was 100 and no deformity was reported. There was a trend
of increasing mass gain with increasing protein supply in each diets, the lowest protein supply resulted in reduced mass gain Figure 5 and 6.
Figure 5. Average mass gain ± SE of patin fed on HFM diet during experiment according to protein supply in g kg
-1
day
-1
. Each value corresponds to two observations.
5 7
9 11
13 15
17
5 10
15 20
25 30
35
A v
e ra
g e
m a
ss g
f ish
-1
Day
HFM diet
8 14
20 23
26 30
18 Figure 6. Average mass gain ± SE of patin fed on LFM diet during experiment
according to protein supply in g kg
-1
day
-1
. Each value corresponds to two observations.
Growth rates are shown in Table 4. Growth rate was significantly different between treatments. Higher levels of protein supply induced higher SGR values,
and growth of fish fed on HFM diet was superior to fish fed on LFM diet with the same protein supply. The highest SGR 2.57 was reached by using HFM diet
with 23 and 30 g kg
-1
day
-1
protein supply. The HFM diet gave also the best FCR 0.9 with 8 g kg
-1
day
-1
protein supply.
5 7
9 11
13 15
17
5 10
15 20
25 30
35
A v
e ra
g e
m a
ss g
f ish
-1
Day
LFM diet
8 14
20 23
26 30
19 Table 5. Average initial and final body mass, growth rate, and food conversion
ratio according to diet and protein supply Diet
Protein supply g kg fish
-1
day
-1
Initial mass g fish
-1
Final mass g fish
-1
SGR day
-1
FCR HFM
8 6.49
11.25
abc
1.67
bcd
0.90
d
14 6.16
12.80
abc
2.22
ab
1.14
cd
20 6.36
13.21
abc
2.22
ab
1.63
bcd
23 6.56
15.40
a
2.57
a
1.58
bcd
26 6.22
13.23
abc
2.28
ab
2.02
b
30 6.33
14.81
ab
2.57
a
2.00
b
LFM 8
6.66 10.02
c
1.24
d
1.23
cd
14 6.26
10.31
c
1.51
bcd
1.76
bc
20 6.41
12.60
abc
2.04
abc
1.85
bc
23 6.44
9.96
c
1.32
cd
3.31
a
26 6.43
10.92
bc
1.60
bcd
2.99
a
30 6.52
11.73
abc
1.78
bcd
3.02
a
SEM 0.15
0.74 0.14
0.13 Body compositions are shown in Table 5. Body dry matter, protein, ash,
and gross energy GE did not differ significantly between treatments, whereas body fat content differed significantly. Highest body fat content 78 was
observed with LFM diet and high protein supply, 23 g kg
-1
day
-1
while lowest fat content 42 and 46 was observed with HFM diet and 8 and 14 g kg
-1
day
-1
protein supply, respectively.
20 Table 6. Average of body composition according to diet and protein supply
Diet Protein supply
g kg fish
-1
day
-1
Dry matter
Protein Fat
Ash GE
Initial 205
138 31.4
31.3 4.50
HFM 8
212 137
41.9
d
28.0 4.90
14 225
146 46.1
d
29.1 5.27
20 225
143 48.7
cd
27.5 5.29
23 232
147 51.7
cd
27.3 5.52
26 248
158 50.1
cd
34.2 5.71
30 222
134 56.7
bcd
25.2 5.39
LFM 8
224 128
57.3
bcd
31.0 5.28
14 225
127 62.2
abcd
29.5 5.45
20 231
122 76.7
ab
26.4 5.91
23 236
134 61.7
abcd
30.7 5.59
26 245
130 78.0
a
30.2 6.14
30 242
134 67.4
abc
31.6 5.83
SEM 11
9 3.6
2.6 0.23
Nutrient utilizations are shown in Table 6. Protein retention, fat retention, and protein efficiency ratio PER differed significantly between treatments.
Highest protein retention value 32.4 was obtained with HFM diet and 8 g kg
-1
day
-1
protein supplies. Highest fat retention 100.2 was obtained with LFM diet and 8 g kg
-1
day
-1
protein supplies. Highest PER value 2.37 was obtained with HFM diet and 8 g kg
-1
day
-1
protein supplies.
21 Table 7. Average of protein retention, fat retention, and protein efficiency ratio
according to diet and protein supply Diet
Protein supply g kg fish
-1
day
-1
Protein retention
Fat retention
PER HFM
8 32.4
a
62.0
bcd
2.37
a
14 29.2
ab
52.8
bcd
1.89
ab
20 19.4
bcd
39.8
d
1.32
cd
23 21.1
abc
42.9
cd
1.37
bcd
26 18.7
bcd
33.1
d
1.06
def
30 14.0
cd
37.7
d
1.07
def
LFM 8
19.0
bcd
100.2
a
1.77
bc
14 13.6
cd
70.9
abc
1.24
de
20 12.4
cd
76.2
ab
1.18
def
23 8.2
d
39.9
cd
0.65
f
26 8.5
d
54.7
bcd
0.72
ef
30 9.3
cd
41.9
cd
0.72
ef
SEM 2.2
5.3 0.09
Dry matter and protein apparent digestibility coefficient ADC are shown in Table 7. Both dry matter and protein digestibility calculation gave similar
values for the two diets, HFM and LFM. Nevertheless, LFM diet led to slightly better value than HFM with dry matter digestibility 89.0 and protein
digestibility 94.4.
Table 8. Average of feed digestibility Diet
ADC Total
Protein HFM
87.8 91.6
LFM 89.0
94.4 The amino acid profile of the two diets was compared with amino acid
requirement of channel catfish Figure 7. With HFM diet, the profile for each amino acid fulfilled amino acid requirement of channel catfish, even if excessive
for most amino acids, while LFM diet appeared insufficient in lysine, but fulfilled for the others.
22 Figure 7. Amino-acid profile in each feed compared with channel catfish
requirement g kg
-1
protein.
4.2 Discussion
Kategori