4.6 Article

Effect of housefly maggot meal (magmeal) diets on the performance, concentration of plasma glucose, cortisol and blood characteristics of Oreochromis niloticus fingerlings

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY AND ANIMAL NUTRITION
Volume 92, Issue 4, Pages 511-518

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2007.00745.x

Keywords

Oreochromis niloticus; fishmeal; housefly maggot meal; stress response

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A 56-day feeding trial was conducted to access the effect of housefly maggot meal (magmeal) diets on the performance, concentration of plasma glucose, cortisol and blood characteristics of Oreochromis niloticus fingerlings. Seven feeds formulated to contain 36% protein and 20 kJ g(-1) gross energy (dry matter basis), were prepared by replacing fish meal with magmeal. Fifteen fingerlings (initial average weight 2.0 +/- 0.1 g) stocked per experimental tank were fed in triplicates at 5% body weight in two portions per day (a level previously established). Growth and food conversion ratio were adequate and comparable without any significant differences (p < 0.5) between feeding groups. Mean values for haematocrit and plasma glucose were not significantly different (p < 0.05) among the feeding groups. Fish group fed control diet (containing highest inclusion level of fish meal and without magmeal) gave the lowest haemoglobin concentration (5.96 +/- 0.22 g dl(-1)). This value was significantly different from other feeding groups. Stressful conditions in fish and in mammals are associated with decreased growth, haematocrit (packed cell volume) and haemoglobin values, increased whole blood glucose (hyperglycaemia) and plasma cortisol concentrations. No such physiological changes were observed in this study. Results suggest that feeding O. niloticus fingerling with magmeal diets did not cause any form of physiological stress. Magmeal can be used as a good alternative protein source in tilapia diets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available