EVALUATION OF FEED AND FEEDSTUFF WITH ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION

Ingredients and formulated diets can be evaluated by a variety of chemical and biological tests.
These tests are used as
i. quality control; to check on the accuracy of the manufacturing process arriving at a
finished feed of the desired composition
ii. to measure nutrient loss during manufacture and storage
iii. to predict the nutritional value of a particular formulation to detect oxidative rancidity.
Generally, feed can be evaluated by
a. chemical method
b. biological method
c. economic method
The strength of biological methods of feed evaluation is that the data obtained can be used to
estimate the nutritional value of new diet formulations by summing up the nutritional value of the
ingredients. The best method to evaluate a diet formulation is to feed it to a group of fish and
compare their growth to that of fish fed a standardized diet for which the nutritional value is known
(biological method). This is not always practical, particularly when the feed formulation may
change frequently in response to changing ingredient prices.
The value of chemical methods of feed evaluation is that they do not require feeding trials to be
conducted. The weakness of biological method is that the values obtained in individual ingredients
cannot always be used together to predict the value of mixture of ingredients. Chemical test only
correlates results with growth performance whereas biological evaluation methods measures
performance directly.
CHEMICAL EVALUATION METHOD
Chemical evaluations are done in-vitro. These methods are used for quality control and to some
extent predict nutritional value of a feed formulation of an individual feed ingredients.
Proximate Analysis
Proximate analysis involves the partitioning of compounds in a feed into six categories based upon
the chemical properties of the various constituents of feeds. The six categories are
✓ moisture (water),
✓ crude protein,
✓ ether extract,
✓ crude fiber,
✓ ash, and
✓ nitrogen-free extract.
It is important to remember that proximate analysis, like many chemical analyses, is not a nutrient
analysis; rather it is a partitioning of both nutrients and non-nutrients into categories based on
common chemical properties of the nutrients and non-nutrients.
Accepted methods for conducting proximate analysis are described in detail in Official Methods
of Analysis, published by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC)(1995).
Composition of Categories in Proximate Analysis
Categories Composition
Moisture Water
Crude protein Essential amino acids
Nonessential amino acids
Free amino acids,
amines,
nucleic acids
Ether extract Triglycerides
Phospholipids
Sterols
Fat-soluble vitamins
Miscellaneous lipids (waxes, spinglomyelins, etc.)
Ash Essential elements
Nonessential elements
Toxic elements
Crude fiber Insoluble polysaccharides (cellulose, hemicellulose, chitin)
Nitrogen-free extract Monosaccharides
Oligosaccharides
Soluble saccharides
Water-soluble vitamins

Other procedures
Other procedures are sometimes used to measure crude protein and lipid levels in feeds and tissues.
For measuring protein levels, the Lowry and biuret methods are used. In addition, nitrogen can be
measured directly using a nitrogen analyzer. For measuring lipid levels in fish products, other
methods are sometimes used (Folch et al. 1957; Bligh and Dyer 1959). These methods are
relatively gentle and produce lipid extracts that can be used in further analysis, such as gas
chromatography (GC).
Nutrient Analysis
Individual essential nutrients such as amino acids, fatty acids, minerals and vitamins can be
measured directly in feeds by chemical analysis. But a caution to note is that the levels of essential
nutrients determined by chemical means are not necessarily equal to the levels that are biologically
available to a fish,
Amino acids and many vitamins can be analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography
(HPLC). Fatty acids are analyzed using GC. Lipid classes, i.e., triglycerides and phospholipids,
are measured using thin-layer chromatography or, more recently, supercritical CO2 separations.
Minerals are measured using atomic absorption spectrophotometry or inductively coupled plasma
spectrophotometry (ICP).
Chemical Tests for Protein Quality
The following chemical tests for protein quality are used to measure the effects of processing on
protein quality.
Pepsin Digestibility. For years, the animal and fish feed industry has relied upon the pepsin
digestibility test, performed in the laboratory, to detect fish meals that have been subject to thermal
abuse during their manufacture. This test relies upon the enzyme pepsin, usually obtained from
pig stomachs, to digest the protein in the fish meal. If the protein has been damaged by thermal
abuse during drying, the pepsin digestibility value will be lower than the values typically obtained
withhigh quality fish meal. The original pepsin digestibility test (AOAC, 1998, method 971.09)
was modified by diluting the concentration of pepsin to increase the accuracy of the test with
respect to discriminating between fish meals of average and those of high quality (Olley and Pirie
1966). This modification is known as the Torry method. Good for animal protein not plant protein
A similar method for measuring the in vitro digestibility of fish meals and other protein sources is
the multienzyme pH-stat method. This method uses a combination of proteolytic enzymes rather
than a single enzyme (pepsin) to digest the sample and maintains a constant pH in the test solution
during digestion. This method has been applied to aquaculture feed ingredients by substituting
proteolytic enzymes extracted from the pyloric caeca of rainbow trout for enzymes from terrestrial
animals (Dimeset al. 1994). Several studies suggest that multienzyme tests accurately predict the
biological value of fish meals (Anderson et al. 1993; Dimes et al.1994).
Tests Used to Determine the Nutritional Quality of Soybean Meal.
Various chemical tests used to determine the adequacy of heat treatment of soybean meal. They
divided the chemical tests into two groups: those that detect underheated soybean meal and those
that detect overheated meal. Chemical tests to detect underheated soybean meal were urease
activity, trypsin activity, and protein solubility.
Urease is an enzyme naturally present in soybeans that does not have any significant nutritional
relevance except that it is heat-sensitive and its activity correlates well with residual trypsin
activity in dried soybean meal. It is also relatively easy to measure (AOAC 1995). Urease activity
in commercial soybean meal ranges from a 0.02 to a 0.1 increase in pH (Vohra and Kratzer 1991).
Values of over a 0.5 increase in pH indicate insufficient heat treatment of the soybean meal. If no
increase in pH is detected with the urease test, this may mean that the soybean meal has been
overheated, so some residual urease activity in the meal is preferred, at least for soybean meal
intended for use in poultry feeds. Unheated soybean meal has a urease activity of a >2.25 pH rise
(Waldroup et al. 1985).
Trypsin activity in soybean meal decreases with heat treatment in proportion to urease activity.
Unheated, solvent-extracted soybean meal can contain over 21 trypsin inhibitor units/mg sample
(Araba and Dale, 1990), but commercial soybean meal subjected to normal heating during the
press-cake drying process generally contains about half the trypsin inhibitor activity of unheated
meal. Additional heating further reduces trypsin inhibitor activity, the amount of reduction
depending on the temperature and the duration of heat treatment (Arndt et al. 1999).
A third method for measuring the extent of heat treatment of soybean meal is the water solubility
test, which involves measuring Kjeldahl nitrogen levels in the soybean meal and in a water extract
of the soybean meal (Vohra and Kratzer 1991). The method has been slightly modified by
extracting the sample in 0.2% KOH (Araba and Dale 1990). Heating decreases the percentage of
0.2% KOH-extractable protein, from about 99% in raw soybean meal to about 72% after 20 min
of autoclaving, corresponding to adecrease in trypsin inhibitor units from 21.1 to 1.0 (Araba and
Dale 1990).
Chemical Tests for Lipid Quality
The two major concerns with lipids are hydrolytic and oxidative rancidity. Both are undesirable in
dietary lipids and in finished feeds. The use of high levels of fish oils in fish feeds creates a high
potential for oxidative rancidity to develop during prolonged feed storage. The onset of lipid
oxidation in a feed or lipid can be delayed by the presence of antioxidants, both those naturally
present and those added. Antioxidants prevent oxidation from moving from the initiation stage to
the propagation stage by capturing free radicals. Once they are expended, oxidation moves to the
propagation stage and proceeds very rapidly.
Hydrolytic Rancidity.
Hydrolytic rancidity is caused by enzymatic hydrolysis of fatty acids from triglycerides and
phospholipids. Moisture is required for lipases, the enzymes involved in releasing fatty acids, to
operate, and lipases can originate from the tissues of fish or from microorganisms living in feed or
lipids. Free fatty acids are measured by a titration method (AOAC 1995) and are expressed as a
percentage. In fish oils used in fish feeds, the usual upper limit for fatty acids is 3%.

Oxidative Rancidity. Oxidative rancidity is caused by the reaction of a free radical with double
bonds of unsaturated fatty acids. Free radicals arise through various mechanisms, including
enzymatic activity and radiation, and their production is enhanced by the presence of divalent
cations, especially Cu and Fe. There are a nearly infinite number of intermediate products of
oxidation of a complex lipid such as fish oil, but intermediate products include hydroperoxides
and peroxides, which in turn produce aldehydes and ketones. Oxidative rancidity is measured by
detecting and quantifying aldehydes and ketones or by measuring the final products of oxidation.
The levels of intermediate products of lipid oxidation rise in the early stages of oxidation, then fall
in the late stages. This is important to remember when interpreting the results of the following
tests.
Peroxide Value. The peroxide value measures products of the initial stages of lipid oxidation.
There are several methods for measuring the peroxide value, but the most common are described
in the AOAC (1995). Peroxide values are expressed as milliequivalents of peroxide per 1000-g
sample. Since the test measures intermediate products of oxidation, values rise in the early stages
and fall in the later stages. Fresh herring oil is reported to have a peroxide value of 6 (Hung et al.
1980).
Thiobarbituric Acid-Reactive Substances (TBARS)Test. The TBARS test measures
intermediate products of lipid oxidation, mainly malonaldehyde. Malonaldehyde reacts with
thiobarbituric acid to produce a red color. The TBARS test can be done on oils, fish flesh, or feeds,
although a modification of the procedures of Lemon (1975) and Yu and Sinnhuber (1977) by
Asakawa et al. (1975) should be used for feeds. The TBARS number is expressed as milligrams
of malonaldehyde per 1000-g sample. Hung et al. (1980) found TBARS numbers of about 50 in
fresh herring oil, while oxidizing oil had numbers of over 500. As with the peroxide value,TBARS
numbers in oils increase and then decrease with continuing oxidation. The heat and pressure of
pelleting a fish feed destroy malonaldehde, making evaluation of freshly pelleted feed by TBARS
a less valuable tool than evaluation of the ingredients or mixtures before pelleting (Hardy et
al.1983).
Anisidine Value. The anisidine value test measures the presence of aldehyde in a sample rather
than an intermediate product of oxidation. The anisidine value is a useful method for measuring
the oxidative rancidity in oils but is not useful for measuring oxidation in feeds due to color
interference caused by chromogens in the diet (Hung et al. 1980). The anisidine value is expressed
as 100 times the optical density of a solution resulting from a mixture of 1 g of oil and 100ml of a
mixture of solvent and p-anisidine, measured at 350 nm in a 10-mm cell (List et al. 1974).
Kries Test. The Kries test is a rapid test which indicates oxidative rancidity when a red color
appears in a sample mixed with phloroglucinol. The test can be quantitative or qualitative. The
appearance of a red color indicates the presence of an aldehyde (Rossell 1983).
Schall Oven Test. Frankel (1993) described a method used to determine the induction time
remaining for a lipid before oxidation moves from stage 1, initiation, to stage 2, propagation. This
method overcomes the problem of trying to estimate the quality of a lipid source from a single
measurement of the peroxide value or TBARs, in other words, the problem of not knowing
whether the value is going up or going down. By measuring the PV in a lipid sample, then
subjecting the sample to an elevated temperature in an oven for a day or more and retesting, one
can determine if the sample is in the early or late stages of initiation and/or propagation, plus
estimate the degree of protection provided by antioxidants in the sample.
Chemical Tests for Ash Components
Fish meals are often tested for ash and/or NaCl content to meet the specifications required by many
fish food manufacturers. High-ash fish meals are those containing over 15% ash. In white fish
meals high ash levels indicate that a high proportion of seafood processing waste was used in
manufacturing the meal. High ash levels are usually associated with fish meals having protein
contents below 65%. Sodium chloride levels above 5–6% are generally undesirable in fish meals,
mainly because high levels dilute protein.
Chemical Tests for Antinutritional Factors and Toxins
Plants employ a variety of defenses to prevent their seeds and tubers from being eaten or, if they
are eaten, from being digested. Oilseed meals contain antinutritional factors, some of which can
be destroyed by heat treatment. Those that cannot be destroyed include gossypol in cottonseed
 meal, glucosinolates in canola meal, and phytic b iiiiuiin soybean meal, cottonseed meal, canola
meal, other oilseed meals, and some grain by-products. Suitable methods for testing for these
compounds are reported in the AOAC (1995) publications.
Chemical Score and Indispensable Amino Acid Index (IAAI)
Two mathematical methods of predicting the nutritional value of feed ingredients have been used
in the past and merit mention here. Both methods compare the amino acids in a protein with those
in whole-egg protein, a complete protein. The chemical score is equal to 100 minus the percentage
deficiency of the most limiting amino acid, jjjjj as follows:
(Paul and Southgate, 1976).

𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛 (𝑔/100𝑔)

𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 (%) = × 100
𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 (𝑔/100𝑔)

A more complex and accurate calculation is that used to compute the IAAI, which is the ratio of
the indispensable amino acid in the test protein (TP) divided by the indispensable amino acids in
whole-egg protein (WEP) as follow (Oser, 1959)
𝑛 100 × 𝐿𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑃 100 × 𝑇𝑟𝑦𝑝𝑡𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑃 100 × 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑃
𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐼 = √ × × …×
𝐿𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑆 𝑇𝑟𝑦𝑝𝑡𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑆 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑆

or

100×Lysine P 100×𝑇𝑟𝑦𝑝𝑡𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑃 100×𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑃

Log EAAI = 0.1 (Log ( 𝐿𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑆
) + Log ( 𝑇𝑟𝑦𝑝𝑡𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑆
) + ⋯ + Log ( 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑆
))

EAAI = 10log 𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐼

P = test protein
S = standard whole egg protein

Hint: to use calculator or Microsoft Excel

1
Power (𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟, )
10

The closer the both values (CS & EAAI) to 100. The closer the EAA profile of the protein matches
the requirement of fish
EAAI/CS >90% = Good quality protein
EAAI/CS 80-89% = Useful Protein
EAAI/CS 70-79% = Incomplete protein
 Both CS and EAAI are useful as rough guide to the quality of protein of a feed protein component.
However, both are based on chemical analysis
Biological Value (BV)

The Biological Value (BV) is calculated by the method of Oser (1959)

BV= 1.09 (EAAI) – 11.73

Predicted-PER is estimated by the method Alsemeyer et al,1974

Predicted − PER = −0.468 + 0.454(𝐿𝑒𝑢) − 0.105(𝑇𝑦𝑟)

Example

The quality of sunflower protein is to be assessed with respect to the requirement of Oreochromis niloticus
given below
Essential Amino Sunflower O.
Acid niloticus
Arginine 4.75 4.2 Compute
Histidine 1.32 1.72 (a) Chemical Score
Isoleucine 2.42 3.11 (b) Essential Amino Acid Index
Leucine 4.12 3.39 (c) Biological Value (after Oser, 1959)
Lysine 2.06 5.12 (d) Predicted-PER (after Alsemeyer et al,1974) if tyrosine
Phenyalanine 2.54 2.68 level is 1.49%
Methionine 1.25 3.75 (e) Comment on the overall quality of sunflower protein in
Threonine 2.07 3.75 fulfilling amino acid requirement of Oreochromis
Tryptophan 0.65 1.00 niloticus
Valine 2.80 2.80 (10 Marks)

Essential Amino Acid Sunflower O. niloticus CS Log EAAI

Arginine 4.75 4.2 113.0952 2.053444 3.74343E+18
Histidine 1.32 1.72 76.74419 1.885045 71.99908314
Isoleucine 2.42 3.11 77.8135 1.891055
Leucine 4.12 3.39 121.5339 2.084698
Lysine 2.06 5.12 40.23438 1.604597
Phenyalanine 2.54 2.68 94.77612 1.976699
Methionine 1.25 3.75 33.33333 1.522879
Threonine 2.07 3.75 55.2 1.741939
 Tryptophan 0.65 1 65 1.812913
Valine 2.8 2.8 100 2
18.57327 1.857326966
71.99908314

(a) Chemical Score=33.33 (Methionine is the limiting amino acid)

(b) Essential Amino Acid Index

𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐼
10 100 × 4.75 100 × 1.32 100 × 2.42 100 × 4.12 100 × 2.06 100 × 2.54 100 × 1.28 100 × 2.07 100 × 0.65 100 × 2.8
= √( × × × × × × × × × )
4.2 1.72 3.11 3.39 5.12 2.68 3.75 3.75 1.00 2.8

= 71.99 = 72
or
100×4.75 100×2.42 100×2.42 100×4.12
Log EAAI = 0.1 (Log ( 4.2
) + Log ( 3.11 ) + Log ( 3.11
)+ Log ( 3.39
)+
100×2.06 100×2.54 100×1.28 100×2.07 100×0.65 100×2.8
Log ( 5.12
)+ Log ( 2.68
)+ Log ( 3.75
)+ Log ( 3.75
)+ Log ( 1.00
)+ Log ( 2.8
)) =
1.86

EAAI = 101.86 = 71.99 = 72

(iii) Biological Value of sample x to be used as dietary ingredients for penaeid shrimp
Using Oser (1959) predictive model for biological value
Biological Value = 1.09(EAAI) − 11.7 = (1.09 × 72) − 11.7 = 66.78
(iv) Predicted-PER (after Alsemeyer et al,1974) if tyrosine level is 1.49%

Predicted − PER = −0.468 + 0.454(𝐿𝑒𝑢) − 0.105(𝑇𝑦𝑟)

= −0.468 + 0.454(4.12) − 0.105(1.49) = 1.2460
(v) Comment on the overall quality of sunflower protein in fulfilling amino acid requirement of
Oreochromis niloticus.
It is an incomplete protein

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Biological evaluation of feed ingredients and finished feeds involves feeding fish and analyzing
some aspect of fish performance and/or diet digestibility. Biological evaluation methods can be
divided into three general categories:
(1) Retention Studies, in which the deposition of a nutrient in the carcass over a short time is
measured
(2) Loss Studies, in which the various losses of ingested food via the feces, urine, and gills are
measured
(3) Performance Studies, in which some measure of growth is used to evaluate and compare
feeds.
The value of biological evaluations of feeds is that they measure performance directly, whereas
chemical tests results are correlated only with fish performance. The weakness of biological
methods is that values obtained on individual ingredients cannot always be used together to predict
the value of a mixture of ingredients. This is particularly true of protein quality evaluations.
Despite this weakness, biological evaluation of proteins is a useful process, particularly to evaluate
various samples of a single ingredient that may have been subjected to different heat treatments,
for example.
The biological evaluation methods are organized into three groups: general methods used for
various nutrients, methods used for proteins, and methods used for energy.
Growth Performance
Over a specific time period, the growth of groups of fish fed various experimental diets is
calculated and compared. Growth can be either gain in weight or gain in length. Growth response
and feed utilization indices were estimated as follows:

Mean weight gain (g) = Final mean weight (g) − Initial mean weight(g)

Final weight (g)– Initial weight (g)

Weight gain (%) = × 100
Initial weight (g)

[ln final weight − ln initial weight]

Specific growth rate (% d−1 ) = × 100
time of culture

Total feed fed

Daily Feeding Rate (% d−1 ) = × 100
[(Initial weight + Final Weight)⁄2] × 56

Total feed fed (g)

Feed conversion ratio =
Weight gain (g)

Weight gain (g)

Protein efficiency ratio =
Total protein fed (g)
 Total
(Total initial number of fish − mortality)
Survival (%) = × 100
Total initial number of fish

Liver weight
Hepatosomatic Index(%) = × 100
whole body weight

Viscera weight
Viscerosomatic Index(%) = × 100
whole body weight
𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒(g kg 0.8 /day)
𝐵𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑔
= ⁄{(𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑔⁄1000)^0.8 + (𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑔⁄1000)^0.8 }⁄𝑛𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ 𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡

1 1
= 1000 × (𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 3 − 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 3 )⁄𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 × 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒

𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛
𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 (%) = 100 × ⁄𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑒𝑑

𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 (%𝑊/day) = (𝑒 𝑆𝐺𝑅 − 1) ∗ 100

Given the data below. Evaluate the performance of 40%, 18kj/kg feed fed to Clarias gariepinus
using the following indices.
(i) % Weight Gain Initial Weight 3.37g
(ii) Specific Growth Rate Final Weight 10.04g
(iii) Food Conversion Ratio Feed Intake 7.6g
(iv) Protein Efficiency Ratio Initial Carcass Protein 13.47%
(v) Protein productive Value Final Carcass Protein 15.85%

𝑊2 − 𝑊1 10.04 − 3.37
% 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 = .× 100 = × 100 = 197.92
𝑊1 3.37
(2marks)

ln(𝑊2) − ln (𝑊1) ln (10.04) − ln (3.37)

𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = × 100 = × 100 = 1.95
56 56
(2marks)

𝐹𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝐹𝑒𝑑 7.6 7.6

𝐹𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = = = = 1.14
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 10.04 − 3.37 6.67
(2marks)

𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 6.67 6.67

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = = = = 2.19
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑑 7.6 × 0.40 3.04
(2marks)

(𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛) − (𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛)

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = × 100
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑑
 (15.85) − (13.47)
= × 100 = 78.29%
3.04
(2marks)

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

(𝑊2 × 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛) − (𝑊1 × 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛)
= × 100
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑑
(10.04 × 15.85⁄100) − (3.37 × 13.47⁄100)
= × 100 = 37.5%
3.04

Condition factor and body indices

Fulton’s condition factor (K) will be determined according to (Ricker, 1975)equation as follow;
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ
𝐾= × 100
(𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ)3
Body indices were assessed as follow
Liver weight
Hepatosomatic Index(%) = × 100
whole body weight
Viscera weight
Viscerosomatic Index(%) = × 100
whole body weight
Total weight without gut and gonads
Dressing Percentage(%) = × 100
whole body weight

Body composition and nutrient retention studies

Whole body composition analyses (n=3 fish per replicate) will be conducted following the
procedures of AOAC (2010). Results obtained therefrom will be used in determining nutrient
retention calculated as follow;

Apparent Digestibility Coefficient.

This method is useful both with feed ingredients and with finished feeds. Direct and indirect
methods have been used to study digestibility. Most of the digestibility studies in aquaculture
nutrition have identified indirect methods as being reliable in carrying out digestibility study for
fish (Takeuchi et al., 1979; Wilson and Poe, 1985; Satoh et al., 1992). The fish are fed for several
days, feces are collected, and the chromic oxide (or yttrium) levels of both the feed and the feces
 are determined. Based on the concentration of an indigestible marker (exogenous and endogenous
markers) in the feed and in the fecal samples, the digestibility coefficients of the feed or feed
ingredients is determined. An inert material, such as chromic oxide or yttrium oxide, is added to
the feed at a level of 0.5–1.0% (0.1% for yttrium oxide). one advantage of using chromic oxide is
that it can be measured relatively easily in most laboratories, in contrast to yttrium (AFIA 1999).

Nutrient Digestibility Coefficient

The nutrient digestibility coefficient is then determined as follows:

Apparent nutrient or energy Digestibility Coefficient of the feed

𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎tor in feed 𝑛𝑢t𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛t or 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠
= 100 − 100 (( )×( ))
𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎tor in faeces 𝑛𝑢t𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛t or 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑

The efficacy of the external and internal markers was tested by Halver et al. (1993) who reported
that endogenous marker especially Acid Insoluble Ash (AIA) was a more reliable indicator of
digestibility coefficient as the dietary ingredient (ash) is used and analysis of this component in
feed and faeces uses simple gravimetry method. Goddard and McLean (2001) reported that there
was no significant difference in apparent digestibility coefficients for nitrogen, dry matter or gross
energy determined in a practical diet using naturally occurring AIA. Smith, (1989) reported the
various methods of sampling faeces to be used in digestibility analysis; may be from obtained from
the lower large intestine by suction method or obtained by gentle pressure in the abdomen of the
fish or periodically removed from the tank by siphoning or the use of settling column.
An experiment conducted to evaluate in-vivo apparent digestibility coefficients of protein and energy
of 35% c.p feed fed to Oreochromis niloticus gave the following results.

Indicator in Feeds 0.23

Indicator in Faeces 0.87
Crude Protein in Feeds 35
Crude Protein in Faeces 28
Energy in Feeds 17
Energy in Faeces 14

(i) Estimate Apparent Protein Digestibility Coefficient of the feed

0.23 28
Apparent Protein Digestibility Coefficient of the feed = 100 − 100 (( ) × ( )) = 100 − 21.15
0.87 35
= 78.85%
(ii) Estimate Apparent Energy Digestibility Coefficient of the feed

0.23 14
Apparent Energy Digestibility Coefficient of the feed = 100 − 100 (( ) × ( )) = 100 − 21.77
0.87 17
= 78.22%

Ingredients Digestibility Coefficient

When feed ingredients are being tested, they are usually combined with a semi-purified diet at 25–
35% of the combined diet. The semi-purified (basal)diet is also supplemented with the inert
indicator and fed to separate groups of fish. The apparent digestibility of protein in the test
ingredient, comprising 30% of the test diet, is calculated as follows
ADC of ingredients (ATI) =𝐴𝑇𝐷 + ((𝐴𝑇𝐷 − 𝐴𝑅𝐷)𝑋 (0.7 𝑋𝑁𝑅𝐷/0.3𝑋𝑁𝑇𝐼))

Where ADC = Apparent digestibility coefficients.

Crdiet = Chromium in diet

Crfeaces = Chromium in faeces

Nutrients = protein, lipid, ash, carbohydrate, fibre energy, amino and fatty acid.

DM = Dry matter.

ATI = ADC test ingredients

ATD = ADC test diets

ARD = ADCcontrol diet

NRD = Nutrient or energy contents of control diet

NDI = Nutrient or energy contents of test ingredient

0.7 = Proportion of the control diet in the test diet

0.3 = Proportion of test ingredients in the test diet

% Cr = % Chromium (Cr2O3)

Microbiological studies
Prevalence of microorganisms in fish feeds or feed ingredients or on their effects on fish could
also be studied. Number (load in CFU/g) and species (diversity) must be measured because
bacteria contamination of fish feed results from the use of contaminated feed ingredients

Economic Evaluation
The reality of fish production is that feed accounts for over 50% of the operating costs of growing
fish, and any savings on feed costs have a large impact on the profitability of an enterprise. This
creates a temptation to focus on the cost of feed, the idea being to purchase the least expensive
feed available. Feed costs must be considered, but combining biological evaluation with the
economic aspects permits a farm to maximize production and minimize the costs of production. In
other words, one must examine the cost of feed per unit of product sold to truly understand the
contribution of feed to the overall cost of fish production.
 Production Economics analysis was carried out using the following indices as reported in Faturoti,

1989; Abu et al. 2010; Boateng et al., 2014; Adebayo and Daramola, 2013.

Cost of Feed
Incidence of Cost = Weight of Fish......................................................................................(1)

Value of Fish
Profit Index = ................................................................................................(2)
Cost of Feed

Profit/kg = Value of 1kg fish − Incidence of cost.......................................................(3)

Total Cost (TC) = TVC + TFC..........................................................................................(4)

Where TVC = Total Variable Cost (Cost of fingerlings + Cost of Feeding)

TFC = Total Fixed Cost (Cost of Aquaria Tanks)

Straight line method of depreciation was used to evaluate the cost of Aquaria tanks with the
following properties.
Cost Price − Savage value
Depreciation =
Life Span

Total Revenue(TR) = Price of Fish × Biomass Output (kg)..................................(5)

Gross Margin (GM) = TR − TVC.............................................................................(6)
Net Return(NR) = TR − TC OR GM − TFC........................................................(7)
Profitability Index
Fixed Cost
Expense Structure Ratio(ESR) = ..............................................................(8)
Total Cost
Total Revenue
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) = ..................................................................(9)
Total Cost

Total Cost
Gross Ratio (GR) = Total Revenue..............................................................................(10)
Net Return
Rate of Return (ROR) = ...........................................................................(11)
Total Cost

In an experiment to evaluate the economic performance of a diet, the results in the table below
were obtained.
Cost of feed/kg N310.78
Weight Gain 8.73g
Feed Fed 13.60g
 Market value of 1kg fish N750

Estimate
(i) Cost of the feed fed to fish
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑/𝑘𝑔 × 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑓𝑒𝑑
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ =
1000
N310.78 × 13.60
= = 4.216
1000

(ii) Value of fish produced using the feed

𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ
𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 = × Market value of 1kg fish
1000
8.73
= × 750 = 6.54
1000
(iii) Incidence of Cost of producing the fish
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ
Incidence of Cost of producing the fish =
𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑓𝑒𝑑/𝑘𝑔
4.216
= = 482.93
0.00873
(iv) Profit index
𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ 6.54
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = = = 1.55
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑒𝑑 4.216
(v) Gross Profit/kg

Gross Profit/kg = Market value of 1kg fish − Incidence of Cost of producing the fish
= 750 − 482.93 = N267.07