{"id":667,"date":"2015-02-15T06:50:27","date_gmt":"2015-02-15T06:50:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=667"},"modified":"2017-01-04T12:06:50","modified_gmt":"2017-01-04T12:06:50","slug":"proximate-and-mineral-composition-of-calanoid-copepod-sinodiaptomus-rhinediaptomus-indicus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol2no1\/proximate-and-mineral-composition-of-calanoid-copepod-sinodiaptomus-rhinediaptomus-indicus\/","title":{"rendered":"Proximate and Mineral Composition of Calanoid Copepod Sinodiaptomus (Rhinediaptomus) Indicus"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

A wide variety of live food organisms are utilized in fish larviculture, mainly because of their nutritional value, which is higher than that of artificial diets.\u00a0 Copepods are a well known natural source of food for fish larvae and fingerlings. Copepods from wild sources as well as cultured in suitable conditions can be used.\u00a0 The culture methods for marine Copepods are well advanced (Ogle, 1979, Paym and Rippingale, 2001), but relatively few attempts have been made to culture fresh water copepods. One example may be a method of mass culture of Paracyclops<\/em> fimbriatus <\/em>developed recently by Szlauer (1995) based on the observations made from a mass occurrence (13000 individuals\/litre) during experiments on municipal sewage sludge. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the nutritional quality in terms of proximate and mineral composition of the freshwater calanoid S. (R)<\/em>.indicus<\/em> from wild and cultured sources, so as to be used as an efficient food source for finfish and prawn larvae.<\/p>\n

Materials and Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n

Calanoid copepods were collected from a freshwater pond at Madhavaram near Chennai, using plankton net (150 \u03bcm mesh size) by towing at a depth of 1m.\u00a0 Collections were made between 7 a.m and 8 a.m and the samples were brought to the laboratory.\u00a0 The plankton was identified according to the taxonomic descriptions of Edmondston (1959), Rangareddy (1994) and Dussart and Defaye (1995). Mass culture of copepods was achieved using yeast, chlorella and poultry manure in different combinations at 250 ppm. The proximate and mineral contents of wild and cultured S. (R). indicus<\/em> was analysed. The moisture, ash and mineral contents were determined using the standard methods as given in AOAC (1995). Lyophilized samples were analysed for protein by the Lowry\u2019s method using Bovine serum albumin as a standard (Lowry et al<\/em>., 1951). The carbohydrate content was determined by phenol-sulphuric acid method using glucose as a standard (Dubois et al<\/em>., 1956). The lipid content was determined by following the procedure of Bligh and Dyer (1959). The results obtained in each experiment were analysed statistically using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA).<\/p>\n

Results and Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Investigations of Copepod culture methods and their use as natural food fish larvae might help develop more accurate techniques for large scale culture of Copepods, thus making feasible their use as a high quality and easily digestible food. All the diets used in the present study were efficient. The quality of algal lipid present may vary under different nutrient regions. Smaller prey may be particularly suitable for first feeding or for weaker larvae of the stock, being probably easier to capture and consequently consumed at higher rate (Cunha and Plahnas, 1999)<\/p>\n

The proximate composition of wild and cultured species of the Calanoid Copepod S.(R). indicus<\/em> showed nutritionally comparable results with that of Artemia<\/em> taken as control is furnished in (Table 1). The carbohydrate content is found to be slightly lesser than Artemia<\/em>. In the present study lipid content of S. (R)<\/em>. indicus<\/em> was found to be slightly higher. The ash and moisture contents of S. (R). indicus<\/em> showed negligible variations among them with respect to culture media. The live food organisms have a high feed value as protein sources for fish (Watanable et al.<\/em>, 1983a). The protein, lipid and phosphorus contents in most zooplanktons appeared to satisfy the requirement of fish. The biochemical composition of zooplanktons can vary seasonally and be affected by the level of nutrient in water (Vijverberg and Frank, 1976)<\/p>\n

Table 1: Comparison of Proximate composition in Artemia<\/em> and S. (R) indicus<\/em>, wild and cultured in different feed combinations (Y, yeast; C, chlorella; PM, poultry manure).<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Proximate Composition (%)<\/strong><\/td>\nArtemia<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nS. (R) indicus<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nANOVA F; P<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Wild<\/strong><\/td>\nCultured in<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Y<\/strong><\/td>\nC<\/strong><\/td>\nPM<\/strong><\/td>\nY+C<\/strong><\/td>\nY+PM<\/strong><\/td>\nY+C+PM<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Moisture<\/td>\n82.25 \u00b1 0.10<\/td>\n81.55\u00b1 0.10<\/td>\n81.21\u00b1 0.11<\/td>\n80.72\u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n80.40\u00b1 0.04<\/td>\n82.81\u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n81.80\u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n80.21\u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n1072.83; = 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Protein<\/td>\n8.80 \u00b1 0.13<\/td>\n9.22<\/p>\n

\u00b1 0.08<\/td>\n

9.42 \u00b1 0.03<\/td>\n9.21 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n8.78 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n9.48 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n8.36 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n9.82 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n428.95;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Carbohydrate<\/td>\n5.22 \u00b1 0.08<\/td>\n4.33<\/p>\n

\u00b1 0.12<\/td>\n

3.92 \u00b1 0.03<\/td>\n2.41 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n3.89 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n4.21 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n4.04 \u00b1 0.07<\/td>\n4.23 \u00b1 0.05<\/td>\n987.99;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Lipid<\/td>\n2.23 \u00b1 0.14<\/td>\n3.17 \u00b1 0.08<\/td>\n3.21 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n3.71 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n2.21 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n3.61 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n2.81 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n3.67 \u00b1 0.11<\/td>\n456.18;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Ash<\/td>\n0.78 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n0.72 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n0.61 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.52 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.62 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.72 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.71 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.73 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n175.04;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Values are Mean \u00b1 SD of n = 6<\/p>\n

Row wise comparison of means (Tukey\u2019s test at 0.05 LS)<\/p>\n

Moisture: Y+C, Significantly higher than other means; Y+C+PM significantly lower than all other means<\/p>\n

Protein: Y+C+PM significantly higher; Y+PM significantly lower<\/p>\n

Carbohydrate: Artemia<\/em> significantly higher; C, significantly lower<\/p>\n

Lipid: C, Y+C and Y+C+PM, significantly higher; Artemia<\/em> and PM significantly lower<\/p>\n

Ash: Artemia<\/em> significantly higher; C, significantly lower<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The mineral composition of Calanoid Copepod S.(R). indicus<\/em> collected from wild sources generally showed similar pattern with that of Artemia<\/em> except few minor variations (Table 2). The levels of Na, K and Fe were found to be lesser than that of Artemia<\/em>. The zooplankton generally has greater levels of phosphorus than phytoplankton.\u00a0 Other nutrient contents showed negligible differences among the cultured S. (R).indicus<\/em> with respect to different culture media.\u00a0 But the media containing yeast, chlorella and poultry manure was found to be better than others.\u00a0 Statistical analysis of proximate and mineral composition of wild and cultured S. (R).indicus<\/em> showed significance at p<0.05 level.\u00a0 Recent studies show that it is possible to improve the nutritional quality by feeding them diets rich in essential nutrients and that the essential fatty acid content chiefly determines the dietary value for fish and prawn larvae (Watanable et al<\/em>, 1983b). Leger et al.,<\/em>(1987) reported that Artemia<\/em> naupii and adults have high protein, lipid and carbohydrate contents indicating that the macronutrients for most predators as satisfied by them.<\/p>\n

Table 2: Comparison of mineral composition of Artemia<\/em> and S. (R) indicus<\/em> wild and cultured in different feed combinations (Y, yeast; C, chlorella; PM, poultry manure).<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Mineral<\/strong><\/td>\nArtemia<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nS. (R) indicus<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nANOVA F; P<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Wild<\/strong><\/td>\nCultured in<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Y<\/strong><\/td>\nC<\/strong><\/td>\nPM<\/strong><\/td>\nY+C<\/strong><\/td>\nY+PM<\/strong><\/td>\nY+C+PM<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Na (mg\/g)<\/td>\n1.57 \u00b1 0.04<\/td>\n0.57 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.48 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n0.68 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.58 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.66 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.63 \u00b10.02<\/td>\n0.73 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n1423.53;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

K (mg\/g)<\/td>\n1.07 \u00b1 0.03<\/td>\n0.63 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n0.72 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.52 \u00b1 0.03<\/td>\n0.42 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.83 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.73 \u00b10.02<\/td>\n0.90 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n491.01;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Ca (mg\/g)<\/td>\n0.23 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n0.25 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n0.33 \u00b1 0.28<\/td>\n0.18 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n0.24 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.31 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.24 \u00b10.01<\/td>\n0.41 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n3.21;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Mg (mg\/g)<\/td>\n0.29 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n0.27 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n0.28 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n0.21 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.25 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.28 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n0.25 \u00b10.02<\/td>\n0.31 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n19.30;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

P (mg\/g)<\/td>\n1.23 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n1.25 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n1.17 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n1.15 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n1.21 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n1.26 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n1.23 \u00b10.02<\/td>\n1.41 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n111.98;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Zn (mg\/g)<\/td>\n15.70 \u00b1 0.14<\/td>\n21.57 \u00b1 0.14<\/td>\n9.42 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n8.73 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n9.82 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n12.13 \u00b1 0.04<\/td>\n11.61<\/p>\n

\u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n

12.32 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n2.0 x 104<\/sup>;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Fe (mg\/g)<\/td>\n49.35 \u00b1 0.10<\/td>\n24.47\u00b1 0.20<\/td>\n20.62 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n18.72 \u00b1 0.03<\/td>\n19.82 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n26.23 \u00b1 0.04<\/td>\n23.82 \u00b10.03<\/td>\n28.42 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n8.6 x 104<\/sup>;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Cu (mg\/g)<\/td>\n0.52 \u00b1 0.01<\/td>\n2.65 \u00b1 0.10<\/td>\n2.51 \u00b1 0.03<\/td>\n0.81 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n2.32 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n2.51 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n2.42 \u00b10.02<\/td>\n3.12 \u00b1 0.03<\/td>\n2890.31;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Mn (mg\/g)<\/td>\n1.88 \u00b1 0.04<\/td>\n1.17 \u00b1 0.10<\/td>\n1.07 \u00b1 0.07<\/td>\n2.71 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n0.82 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n1.52 \u00b1 0.02<\/td>\n1.32 \u00b10.02<\/td>\n1.70 \u00b1 0.05<\/td>\n741.38;<\/p>\n

= 0.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Values are Mean \u00b1 SD of n = 6<\/p>\n

Row wise comparison of means (Tukey\u2019s test at 0.05 LS)<\/p>\n

Na: Artemia<\/em> significantly higher; Y significantly lower<\/p>\n

K: Artemia<\/em> significantly higher; PM significantly lower<\/p>\n

Ca: Y+C+PM significantly higher<\/p>\n

Mg: Y+C+PM significantly higher; C, significantly lower<\/p>\n

P: Y+C+PM significantly higher; Y and Y significantly lower<\/p>\n

Zn:Wild significantly higher<\/p>\n

Fe: Artemia<\/em>, significantly higher<\/p>\n

Cu: Y+C+PM, significantly higher; Artemia<\/em>, significantly lower<\/p>\n

Mn; C, significantly higher<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Natural zooplankton constitutes ideal food for fish larvae because of the presence of vital enzymes that help in the functioning of the digestive tract. According to Ronnestad et al.,<\/em> (1999), the importance of Calanoid Copepods as natural food in fishponds is that Calanoid species contain more that twice the amount of free amino acids per gram weight than other organisms.<\/p>\n

Other feed should be developed to replace those commercially available diets. The calanoid Copepod S. (R). indicus<\/em> might be good alternative, since it is easy to culture and has high nutritional value. Further investigations are in progress to determine the feasibility of large-scale culture of this species to provide sufficient individuals for production of fish larvae. The further studies will throw more light on the simplicity of the feeding techniques involved in the aquaculture feed practice.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. AOAC, 1995, official methods of analysis, 16th<\/sup> AOAC, Washington, DC.<\/li>\n
  2. \u00a0Bligh E.G. and Dyer W.J., 1959. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Canadian J. Biochem. Physiol<\/em>., 37: 911-917.<\/li>\n
  3. \u00a0Cunha I and Plahnas M, 1999. Optimal prey size for early turbot larvae (Scophthalmus<\/em> maximaus<\/em>) based on mouth and ingested prey size. Aquaculture<\/em>. 175: 103-110.<\/li>\n
  4. \u00a0Dubois M., K.A. Gilles, J.K. Hamilton, P.A. Rebers and F. Smith, 1956. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances, Anal. Chem.,<\/em> 28: 350-356.<\/li>\n
  5. \u00a0Dussart B.H. and Defaye D., 1995. Introduction to the Copepod, city country: SPB Academy Publ. Netherlands<\/em>, pp 1 \u2013 253.<\/li>\n
  6. \u00a0Edmondson W.T., 1959. Freshwater Biology, 2nd<\/sup> John Willey and Sons. Inc., New York<\/em>, 1248pp.<\/li>\n
  7. \u00a0Leger P, Bieber G F and Sorgelos P, 1985. International study on ArtemiaXXXIII<\/em>. Promising results in larval rearing of Penaeus<\/em> stylirostris<\/em> using a prepared diet as algal substitute and for Artemia<\/em> J. World Maricult. Soc<\/em>., 16: 354-367.<\/li>\n
  8. Lowry O.H., Rosebrough N.J., Farr A.L. and Randall. R.J., 1951. Protein measurement with folin reagent. Biol. Che<\/em>., 193: 265-275.<\/li>\n
  9. Ogle J, 1979. Adaptation of brown water culture technique to the mass culture of the Copepod Acartia<\/em> tonsa<\/em>. Gulf<\/em> Rep<\/em>. 6: 291-292.<\/li>\n
  10. Paym M F, Rippingale R J, 2001. Intensive cultivation of the calanoid Copepod Gladioferens imparipe. Aquaculture<\/em>, 201: 329-342.<\/li>\n
  11. Rangareddy Y, 1994. Copepoda; Calanoida; Diaptomidae. In Rengareddy, HJF Dumont, Edns. Guide to the identification of the macro invertebrates of the continental waters of the world. The Nether land, SPB Publications, pp 1-221.<\/li>\n
  12. Ronnestad I, Thorsen A and Finn R N, 1999. Fish larval nutrition: a review of recent advances in the roles of amino acids. Aquaculture. 177: 201-216.<\/li>\n
  13. Szlauer L, 1995. Study on the culture of Paracyclops<\/em> fimbriatus<\/em> (cyclopoids) and the potential of the species as live food for juvenile fish. Acta Icthyol. Piscat<\/em>. 25(2): 15-27.<\/li>\n
  14. Vijverberg J and Frank H, 1976. The chemical composition and cladocerans in relation to their size. Freshwater. Biol.<\/em> 6: 333-345.<\/li>\n
  15. Watanable, T. Kitajima C. and Fujita S, 1983a. Nutritional value of live organisms used in Japan for mass propagation of fish: a review. Aquaculture<\/em>, 34: 115-143.<\/li>\n
  16. Watanable, T. Tamiya T, Oka A, Hirata M, Kitajima C. and Fujita S, 1983b. Improvement of dietary value of live foods for fish larvae by feeding them on highly unsaturated fatty acid and fat soluble vitamin. Japanese Soc. Sci. Fish<\/em>. 49: 471-479.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction A wide variety of live food organisms are utilized […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol2no1"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/667","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=667"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/667\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13101,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/667\/revisions\/13101"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}