BFAR-NFFTC

Science City of
Muoz, Nueva Ecija

FEEDS AND
FEEDSTUFFS FOR
AQUACULTURE USE IN
THE PHILIPPINES

Introduction
Feeds

accounted for 72% and 79% of

total operating costs for pond and
cage operations.
Feed prices are highly dependent on
the costs of imported ingredients
(especially fishmeal) and the
availability of local ingredients (e.g.,
rice bran, copra)

Looking for a solution

Recognizing

the high costs of feed

inputs, farmers look for alternative
ways of reducing feed costs.
- An alternative is the use of
formulated feeds

Factors to be considered in
selecting feed ingredients
a

good protein and energy source

rich in a limiting amino acid
should be the least costly ingredient
available for its particular function in
the diet
acceptability

FEED INGREDIENTS
AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTRY

Different conventional and non-conventional

feedstuffs such as:

fish meal

soybean meal

copra meal

ipil-ipil leaf meal

ricebran

Different conventional and nonconventional feedstuffs

sorghum
meat

and bone meal

hydrolyzed feather meal
algal meal, cottonseed meal
composted water hyacinth
(Cruz and Laudencia; 1987; Santiago, et.al., 1982; Natividad,
1980

Legumes
Ipil-ipil

leaf meal

- Pascual (1983) recommended the use of

Leucaena leaves at a level of 10 percent of
the dry weight as an alternative protein
source
- Soaking the leaves in freshwater for 24
hours is efficient in extracting toxic amino
acid- mimosine.

Miscellaneous fodder plants

Fodder plant

Protein

Fiber

Papaya

high

low

Coffee

low

high

Kangkong

high

low

Camote

high

low

Water hyacinth

low

high

Sago palm

high

low

Roots and tubers

1. Sweet potato (Ipomea batatas L.)

- loaded with carbohydrates and rich in carotene

(provitamin A) but extremely low in protein and
minerals, particularly calcium and phosphorus.

2. Cassava (Manihot escolenta Crantz) or tapioca

-. Dried cassava or cassava flour has practically the
same feed value as yellow corn.
- high in carbohydrates, but low in protein
fat and minerals

Roots and tubers

3. Taro (Colocasia esculenta L.)
- locally known as gabi is an excellent source of
carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals.

4. Elephant yam (Amorphophallus campanulatus)

- also known as pongapong
- Cooked pongapong tuber is a highly digestible
starch
feed, but its protein, vitamin and mineral content
is
too low.

Cereals and cereal byproducts

1. Ricebran
- found to have higher protein
content than grains.
2. Maize (Zea mays L.)
- has been found to be fed
successfully to fish.
- an energy component in
compound feeds.

Oil cakes and oil meals

- by-products of the vegetable oil when

extracted.
Soybean meal

- an important oil seed crop high in

protein.
- palatable
- high nutrient digestibility
- a good source of essential amino acid
- can be used as a substitute for more

Feeds of animal origin

1. Earthworm meal
- yields a protein content higher than
those of conventional protein
rich/ingredients such as fish meal,
meat and bone meal and soybean
meal.
2. Mussel (tahong) meal
- contains 62 percent crude protein
on a dry weight basis.

3. Giant toad meal

- contains 61.63 percent crude protein
has been found to be an excellent
substitute for fish meal.
- The toad meal is prepared by drying
the meat then cooking and
grinding.

Other feedstuffs
1. Mollasses, yeast, and leaf protein
concentrates
- good partial replacement for the more
expensive cereal grains as an energy
source.

. Brewer's yeast
- has a higher feed value and contains
more than twice as much protein on
a dry weight basis.
- It is also a rich source of B-vitamins,
but low in calcium.

Live or fresh natural feeds

Chlorella, Scenedesmus and Spirulina

- have been established as an

excellent feed for larvae of many
cultured species of fish.

Proximate analyses of
available feedstuffs in the
Philippines

Feedstuff

Crude
protein

Dry matter

Ether
extract

Crude
fiber

Ash

Nitrogen free
extract
44.62

1. Copra meal

89.05%

19.42%

8.17%

11.30%

6.16%

2. Corn bran

10.64

7.41

- coarse, white

85.89

5.51

4.77

57.77

-fine, white

85.20

10.57

7.26

5.07

3.93

57.76

- coarse, yellow

84.18

10.68

7.26

5.43

4.60

55.84

- fine, yellow

88.12

8.25

2.91

1.86

2.02

73.69

- white

86.51

7.31

0.45

0.74

0.51

76.59

- yellow

88.19

8.37

2.10

1.00

0.73

73.82

- young

93.49

31.40

4.27

10.10

6.96

-mature

92.82

24.59

8.52

11.16

7.16

-mixed

89.41

24.22

4.40

3. Corn meal

4. Ipil-ipil leaf meal

13.27

10.79

41.72
44.25
37.16

Proximate analyses of
available feedstuffs in the
Philippines
Feedstuff

5. Monggo

- autoclaved -for 30 minutes and

dried

90.75

- boiled (2530 minutes) and dried

86.21

6. Peanut oil meal

7. Ricebran (cono)

Crude
protei
n

Dry
matter

91.52

0.92

23.85

0.70

43.65

- fine

88.87

12.32

88.37

43.70
56.40

9. Shrimp meal

87.70

6.61

11.58

3.52

4.71

3.42

5.01

3.80

3.64

Ash

6.07

5.87

86.00

Crude
fiber

23.88

- coarse

8. Soybean oil meal

Ether
extrac
t

21.83

15.52

6.95

8.16

1.53

6.42

6.28

6.97

4.60

15.52

Proximate analyses of
available feedstuffs in the
Philippines
Feedstuff
Dry matter

Crude
protein

Ether
extract

Crude fiber

Nitrogen free extract

10
Fishme
al
species not
identified

89.44

53.44

4.39

9.08

Peruvian

90.12

61.21

2.84

10.93

11. Meat
and
bone
meal

92.01

45.92

9.50

6.68

Crude protein (percentage) content

of some common feedstuffs for fish
diet1
Ingredients

Ricebran (D1)
Ricebran (D2)
Fish meal (local)
Fish meal (Peruvian)
Copra meal
Corn bran
Molasses

Crude protein content

(%)

13.50
8.11
50.00
52.90
19.42
10.45
2.90

1 Based on BAI Laboratory Analysis, US NRS (1979)

Crude protein (percentage) content

of some green roughages in the
Philippines1
Ingredients
content

Crude protein
(%)

Camote leaves
8.02
Ipil-ipil leaves (young)
17.52
Azolla sp.
27.00
Cassava leaves
5.24
Sugar cane tops
1.63
1

Nutrient composition of some Philippine Feedstuff.Tech. Bull. No. 21. A.L. Gerpacio and L.S.Castillo.

Kinds of formulated
feeds used in the
Philippines

Various feeds formulations as tested and

recommended based on their efficiency and
cost for finfish culture (O. nilotica)
Percent
protein

Formulation
DIET 1

Ricebran
(75%)

22.251

Fish meal
(25%)
DIET 2

Culture
system

Proponent

Cages

Cost/kg

not
given

Guerrero

FCR

Ricebran
(75%)
Fish meal
(15%)
Soybean
meal
(10%)
with
vitamin
mineral
premix

21.251

Fishpond
s

BFAR, Tanay
Research
Station

not
given

Percent
protein

Formulation
DIET 3

Culture system

Proponent

Cost/kg

FCR

Ricebran (70%)
Fish meal
(15%)
Soybean meal
(10%)

21.851

Fishponds

28.32

Cages

-do-

not given

Ipil-ipil leaf
meal (5%)
with vitaminmineral
premix
DIET 4
Ricebran (45%)
Fish meal
(48%)
Copra meal
(5%)
Ipil-ipil leaf
meal (2%)
with vitamin
mineral premix

BFAR, Fish
Propagation
Division

6.00

1.1

Various feeds formulations as tested and

recommended based on their efficiency and
cost for finfish culture (O. nilotica
Percent
protein

Formulation

Culture
system

DIET 5
Ricebran
(70%)
24.31

Fish meal
(30%)

Cages

with
vitamin
mix
DIET 6

Proponent

Cost/kg

BFAR,
Freshwater
Aquaculture
Development
Training
Center

not
given

FCR

1.3

Ricebran
(65%)
Fish meal
(35%)
with
vitamin
mix

26.351

Cages

-do-

not
given

1.5

Various feeds formulations as tested and

recommended based on their efficiency and
cost for finfish culture (O. nilotica
Percent
protein

Formulation
DIET 7

Ricebran
alone
DIET 8

Culture
system

Cages

12.3

Proponent

Cost/kg

not
given

Guerrero

FCR

Fish meal
(20%)
Ipil-ipil
leaf meal
(20%)

27

Pantastico
and
Baldia

Cages

not
given

Ricebran
(60%)
DIET 9
I pil-ipil
leaf meal
(33.3%)
Ricebran
(66.7%)

Cages

Pantastico
and
Baldia

not
given

Various feeds formulations as tested and

recommended based on their efficiency and
cost for finfish culture (O. nilotica)
Formulation

DIET 10
Fish meal
(25%)

Percent protein

Culture system

Cages

Proponent

Guerrero

Cost/kg

FCR

not given

1.7

not given

3.6

Fine ricebran
( 75%)
DIET 11
Fish meal
(25%)
Ricebran
(65%)

Cages

Guerrero

Copra meal
(10%)

BasedonProximateAnalysisconductedbyCastillo,L.S.andA.L.Gerpacioonthenutrientcomposition

Developmental Study at the

NFFTC
Tilapia

Organic Farming (On-going)

- Treatments used:
1. Rice bran:Vermi cast
2. Rice bran:PCM
3. Rice bran:Duckweed (70:30)

Developmental Study at the

NFFTC
Tilapia

going)

Organic Farming-Fillet (On-

- Treatments used:
1. Rice bran:Duckweed:Vermi cast
70%
30%
500kg/ha
2. Formulated feeds:Duckweed:Vermi cast
70%
30%
500kg/ha
Note:
Formulated feeds: 75% RB:25% FM

STUDIES CONDUCTED
I.

Timing of the Onset of

Supplemental Feeding of
Nile Tilapia (O. niloticus) in
Ponds

Objectives
To
demonstrate
efficient
supplemental feeding strategies for
tilapia production in fertilized ponds
b. To evaluate growth, yield and
survival of tilapia fed at different
periods of delay before feeding
c. To test the applicability of a
delayed feeding strategy under
commercial
tilapia
aquaculture
condition in the Philippines
a.

Methodology

Seven farmers were enlisted for this trial

Pond area: 416 350 m2

Water depth maintained: 1.0 m

Fish stocking
species used: sex reversed nile
tilapia
initial ABW : 0.11g
stocking rate: 4 pcs/m2

Pond fertilization
urea : 28kg N/ha/wk
ammonium phosphate : 5.6kg P/ha/wk

Feeding
types of feeds : 67% Rice Bran
23% Fish Meal
feeding rate:
5% BW = first 15 days
4% BW = thereafter up to 30 days
3% BW = remaining period prior to
harvest

Feeding duration: 150 days

Results
Performance

Treatment
(feeding onset in

days)
45 days
days
Final Mean Weight (g fish-1)*
151.7
Mean Daily Weight Gain (g fish-1d-1)
1.01
Extrapolated Gross Fish Yield (kg ha-1)
4,926
Survival (%)

85

Total amount of feed (kg ha-1)

8,299

75

164.7
1.09
5,140
87

Cost-Benefit of the Two Feeding

Onsets

Item
Income (for selling
fish)
Cost for feeds

45

75

P205,61 P197,06
7
3
99,588
72,816

Profit

106,029
124,247

Conclusion

Delay in the onset of feeding did not significantly

reduce the production of tilapia

Delayed feeding significantly reduced the cost of

feeds by about 37%

In the presence of adequate natural food, feeding

with supplemental feed may start from 45-75 days

Labor requirement is reduced by one month

compared to early feeding

There were no indication that the delayed feeding

strategy compromise the quality of the crop (i.e.
taste, uniformity in size)

Reference
Brown,

C.L., Bolivar, R.B., Jimenez,

E.B., and Szyper, J.P., 2000. Timing of
the Onset of Supplemental feeding of
Nile Tilapia (O. niloticus) in Ponds. p.
237-240. Tilapia Aquaculture in the
21st Century. Proceedings from the
fifth International Symposium on
Tilapia Aquaculture. September 3-7.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

II. Evaluation of
Alternate day Feeding
strategy
Note:
This experiment was conducted by collaboration of:
Freshwater Aquaculture Center (FAC), CLSU
Florida International University (FIV)
Sponsored by Pond Dynamic/Aquaculture
Collaborative
Research Support Program
This presentation was taken from
brochure/technical

Objective
To

determine the effect of

feeding on alternate day on
grow-out efficiency and net
profit

Methodolo
gy

Nine commercial tilapia farmers

participated in the trial

Pond areas: 763 m2

742 m2

Stocking
Strain: sex reversed Nile Tilapia
Average weight at stocking: 0.19g/pc
Stocking rate: 4 fish/m2

All ponds were fertilized with inorganic

fertilizers at the rate of 28kgN and
5.6kgP/ha-1/week-1

Water depth maintained: 1.0m

Type of feed used: Commercial feeds

Frequency of feeding:
a. Daily feeding
b. Alternate day feeding

Feeding duration: 120 days

Result
ABW at harvest s

a. Daily feeding - 167.3+ 53g

b. Alternate day feeding - 137.8+
72g

Survival*

a. Daily feeding - 55%

b. Alternate day feeding - 63%
*

- Apparent differences for the two feeding schedules was insignificant

- No evidence if treatment related or a result of nutritional deficiency

 Fish

yield*
a. Daily feeding - 222kg/pond or 2994kg/ha
b. Alternate day feeding - 200kg/pond or
2804kg/ha

Amount

of feeds
a. Daily feeding - 475kg or 6331kg
b. Alternate day feeding - 208kg or
2690kg/ha

FCR*

a. Daily feeding - 2.24

b. Alternate day feeding - 1.00

- reduced feeding leads to less waste and perhaps more efficient nutrient
absorption
- Reduction of feed waste have indirectly effects on growth rate, either by
altering water

 Cost

benefit analysis
a. Daily feeding
- taking into account gross sales and
fingerlings, feeds and fertilizers cost
resulted to a negative net return for the
daily feeding
(PhP 2,240/ha)
b. Alternate day feeding
- gave a net return of PhP 43,094/ha

Conclusion

Fish fed on alternate days were

robust and healthy and that neither
growth nor survival was in any way
compromised

III.

Feeding Below Satiation

Note:
This experiment was conducted by collaboration of:
Freshwater Aquaculture Center (FAC), CLSU
Florida International University (FIV)
Sponsored by Pond Dynamic/Aquaculture
Collaborative
Research Support Program
This presentation was taken from
brochure/technical
report on optimized feeding strategies of FACCLSU

Methodology

Satiation - to feed fully, to satisfy fully, to supply

with too much

Stocking of ponds
Strain: sex reversed GIFT Tilapia
Average weight at stocking: 0.05g
Stocking rate: 4 pcs/m2

Supplemental Feeding
Feeds: 67% Rice Bran and 33% Fish meal
* Tilapia were fed at 100% satiation and 67%
satiation
levels

Results
On-farm growth performance of Nile Tilapia
at two satiation levels

Performance

100%

67%

Final Mean Weight (g)*

148.8

151.7

Mean Daily Weight Gain

(g/fish)

1.24

1.26

3,077

3,539

57

65

Extrapolated Gross Yield

(kg/ha)
Survival (%)

Analysis of growth performance demonstrated that the reduction of ration to

67% of
satiation had no effect on growth or yield

Cost and return of tilapia

production at two satiation
levels
(P/ha)
Item
Satiation
level
100%

Gross return
Cost
Tilapia fingerlings
Fertilizer
Feeds

67%

195,950

223,500

21,000
7,500
117,450

21,000
7,500
97,500

Benefits of Feeding Below

Satiation

Feeding
below
satiation
coupled
with
fertilization gave comparable growth and yield
to full satiation

Reduced amount of feeds

Reduced amount in organic loading of the pond

Delayed feeding and feeding below

satiation will not only reduce production
costs but will reduce the cost of obtaining,
transporting and storing fish feeds

IV.

MIXED FEEDING
SCHEDULES

Concept

Alternating feeds of high and low

protein contents

Based on the observation that the

digestibility of a feed varies from
day to day, following an apparent
cyclic pattern (two to three days of
high digestibility alternating with a
day or 2 of low digestibility)

Field Trial

O. niloticus were fed a high protein

diet alternated with a low protein
diet

Alternate
feeding
schedules
resulted
in
almost
equal
performance of the fry reared
continously on a high protein diet

The feed cost saving approximated

Beneficial Effect
a.

Direct feed cost-savings

b.

Reduced nitrogen input into the

culture system which in turn
reduces possible euthrophication in
the ponds

Problems of adoption of
mixed feeding schedules

Farms will have to store 2

different types of feeds and each
feed dispensed according to a
strict predetermined schedules

Reference
De

Silva, S.S., 1989. Reducing Feed

Costs in Semi-intensive Aquaculture
System in the Tropics. NAGA, ICLARM
Quarterly. 12:6-7

Thank
you!!!