Aquaculture Nutrition

Research Article

Effects of Different Aquafeed Sources on Growth Performance, Oxidative Capacity, and Fatty Acid Profile of Three Carps Reared in the Semi-Intensive Composite Culture System

Table 3

Growth performance of major carp species fed different commercial diets.


Parameter		Dietary treatments¹								SEM²	p-Value
Parameter	Specie	D1	D2	D3	D4	D5	D6	D7	D8	SEM²	p-Value

Body weight (g)
Initial	L. rohita	62.2	61.1	61.3	61.2	60.9	61.3	61.3	61.3	1.17	0.24
	C. catla	71.9	71.4	71.3	71.9	71.5	71.4	71.1	71.2	0.96	0.87
	C. carpio	30.9	31.1	30.9	31.1	30.4	30.8	30.8	30.4	0.35	0.64
Final	L. rohita	1,026.9^d	1,024.8^d	1,067.5^a	1,034.9^c	1,036.7^c	1,048.2^b	1,049.8^b	1,048.5^b	2.36	<0.001
	C. catla	1,062.1^d	1,067.8^d	1,125.3^a	1,076.8^c	1,115.5^b	1,066.1^d	1,075.6^c	1,115.3^b	1.27	<0.001
	C. carpio	983.4	985.3	998.7	987.3	983.3	989.4	990.5	991.6	4.85	0.63
Gain	L. rohita	964.7^d	963.8^d	1006.3^a	971.8^c	975.8^c	989.9^b	988.5^b	987.3^b	1.47	<0.001
	C. catla	990.2^d	996.4^d	1054.1^a	1004.9^c	1044.1^b	994.8^d	1004.6^c	1044.1^b	5.54	<0.001
	C. carpio	952.5	954.3	967.9	956.2	952.9	958.6	959.7	961.2	4.50	0.87
Body length (cm)
Initial	L. rohita	17.1	17.2	17.1	17.1	17.2	17.2	17.1	17.2	0.05	0.11
	C. catla	18.1	18.2	18.1	18.1	18.2	18.2	18.2	18.2	0.63	0.29
	C. carpio	8.9	9.1	9.2	9.0	9.1	9.1	9.2	9.2	0.15	0.23
Final	L. rohita	37.2^c	37.9^c	43.3^a	38.3^c	40.0^b	40.0^b	40.7^b	41.6^b	1.26	<0.001
	C. catla	31.9^d	31.3^d	36.1^a	32.6^d	35.1^b	32.4^c	31.2^c	33.1^c	1.62	0.04
	C. carpio	27.7	27.5	28.7	27.6	27.6	27.5	27.7	27.5	0.49	0.09
Gain	L. rohita	20.2^c	20.7^c	26.2^a	21.2^c	22.8^b	23.9^b	23.7^b	23.4^b	0.79	<0.001
	C. catla	23.9^c	23.1^c	27.9^a	24.4^c	25.1^b	25.2^b	25.1^b	24.9^b	0.42	<0.001
	C. carpio	18.7	18.4	19.4	18.5	18.4	18.4	18.6	18.4	0.47	0.67
Neck fork	L. rohita	10.3^c	10.2^c	14.5^a	10.4^c	11.4^b	11.4^b	11.2^b	11.3^b	1.03	0.02
	C. catla	10.8^c	10.9^c	13.6^a	10.8^c	11.7^b	11.5^b	11.6^b	11.6^b	0.99	0.03
	C. carpio	9.3	9.2	9.8	9.3	9.2	9.2	9.2	9.2	0.68	0.64
Pectoral fin	L. rohita	1.4^c	1.4^c	2.5^a	1.3^c	1.8^b	1.9^b	1.9^b	1.8^b	0.022	0.02
	C. catla	2.0^c	2.1^c	3.1^a	2.1^c	2.6^b	2.7^b	2.6^b	2.7^b	0.02	0.01
	C. carpio	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.07	0.98
Pelvic fin	L. rohita	7.1^c	7.2^c	9.1^a	7.1^c	7.6^b	7.6^b	7.7^b	7.6^b	0.02	0.01
	C. catla	7.4^c	7.4^c	9.36^a	7.29^c	7.82^b	7.85^b	7.82^b	7.78^b	0.052	0.03
	C. carpio	6.9	6.8	6.78	6.79	6.89	6.81	6.79	6.82	0.015	0.65
Dorsal fin	L. rohita	6.2^c	6.2^c	7.01^a	6.18^c	6.83^b	6.81^b	6.80^b	6.83^b	0.021	0.04
	C. catla	6.9^c	6.9^c	8.25^a	6.89^c	7.24^b	7.27^b	7.21^b	7.23^b	0.034	0.03
	C. carpio	5.4	5.4	5.39	5.41	5.46	5.44	5.43	5.40	0.622	0.72
Caudal fin	L. rohita	3.1^c	3.1^c	4.72^a	3.03^c	3.86^b	3.84^b	3.83^b	3.88^b	0.021	0.03
	C. catla	3.3^c	3.3^c	4.8^a	3.39^c	3.91^b	3.90^b	3.91^b	3.92^b	0.042	0.01
	C. carpio	2.6	2.6	2.6	2.61	2.58	2.66	2.61	2.60	0.720	0.08
Anal fin	L. rohita	5.4^c	5.4^c	7.2^a	5.39^c	5.75^b	5.76^b	5.76^b	5.77^b	0.051	0.02
	C. catla	5.4^c	5.4^c	7.3^a	5.38^c	5.98^b	5.89^b	5.95^b	5.96^b	0.022	0.01
	C. carpio	4.7	4.8	4.8	4.78	4.81	4.84	4.82	4.79	0.213	0.96
SGR³	L. rohita	2.9^a	2.9^a	3.4^a	3.02^d	3.06^d	3.01^d	3.21^c	3.30^b	0.01	<0.001
	C. catla	3.3^e	3.3^e	3.9^a	3.29^e	3.82^b	3.28^e	3.61^d	3.71^c	0.01	0.01
	C. carpio	0.6	0.6	0.75	0.62	0.59	0.65	0.66	0.68	0.16	0.99
Survival rate (%)	L. rohita	98	98	100	97	99	97	97	99	0.34	0.31
	C. catla	96	96	100	98	97	100	100	99	0.62	0.43
	C. carpio	96	97	99	96	100	96	97	98	0.21	0.63
Production (kg/ha/year)	L. rohita	2,074.2	2,087.4	2,297.2	2,076.5	2,176.6	2,175.3	2,167.2	2,189.3	2.012	0.03
	C. catla	2,242.8	2,251.2	2,470.6	2,248.1	2,300.2	2,302.4	2,312.2	2,309.4	4.231	0.04
	C. carpio	1,976.6	1,963.8	1,967.2	1,951.5	1,964.4	1,962.7	1,949.9	1,976.3	6.934	0.66

Note. ¹Dietary treatments = (D1–D8) feeds of different sources, ²SEM = standard error of means, and ³SGR = specific growth rates. ^a−eMeans containing different superscripts indicate the significant differences among means within a row.