See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290053956

Evaluation of Plant-based Attractants in the

Diets of Labeo rohita Fingerlings
Article in ANIMAL NUTRITION AND FEED TECHNOLOGY May 2015
DOI: 10.5958/0974-181X.2015.00032.3

READS

2 authors:
Baidya Nath Paul

Shiba Shankar Giri

Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture

SAARC Agriculture Centre, Dhaka, Banglad

111 PUBLICATIONS 208 CITATIONS

135 PUBLICATIONS 468 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Baidya Nath Paul

Retrieved on: 02 August 2016

Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology (2015) 15: 289-294

doi: 10.5958/0974-181X.2015.00032.3

Short Communication

Evaluation of Plant-based Attractants in the Diets of

Labeo rohita Fingerlings
B.N. Paul* and S.S. Giri1
Regional Research Centre, Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture
Rahara, Kolkata-700 118, India
(Received August 15, 2013)

ABSTRACT
Paul, B.N. and Giri, S.S. 2015. Evaluation of plant-based attractants in the diets of Labeo rohita fingerlings.
Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology, 15: 289-294.
Evaluation of the efficacy of select plant-based attractants in the diets of Labeo rohita fingerlings
(av. weight 3.630.06g) was carried out for a period of 90d. The formulated feed contained mustard
cake, soyabean meal, rice bran, vegetable oil, vitamin and mineral mixture without or with 1% feed
attractants. The five different attractants used included viz. Ekangi (Kampferia galanga), Kharboj (Cucumis
melo), Chotokakla (Piper cubeba), Tambul (Zanthoxylum acanthopodium) and Latakasturi (Abelmoschus
moschatus) designated as A1, A2, A3, A4 and A%, respectively, in addition to a control diet with no
added attractant (A0). The net weight gain (g) was 1.090.31, 2.050.05, 2.580.08, 0.950.55,
1.170.03 and 0.560.04, respectively, in dietary groups F0 to F6. The growth performance revealed
that the net weight gain and specific growth rate were significantly higher (P<0.05) in rohu fingerlings
fed A3 (Kharboj) vis--vis other groups. Carcass proximate composition did not differ significantly
(P>0.05) among the feed treatments. It is concluded from the study that supplementation of Kharboj
(Cucumis melo) at 1% level can be incorporated as an effective plant attractant in the feed of rohu
fingerlings.
Key words: Attractants, Carcass composition, Growth performance, Labeo rohita.

INTRODUCTION
The feed attractants are referred to those ingredients which are added in trace
amounts in a feed to enhance its intake and to preserve the nutritional characteristics.
Fish primarily detect feed through their sight or olfaction (Jones, 1992; Paul et al.,
1996). Feeding behaviour is controlled by chemical signals received by them
*Corresponding author: bnpaulcifa@gmail.com
1
Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture, Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar-751 001, India

289

Paul and Giri

(Mukhopadhyay and Paul, 1996). Dietary feeding stimulants are essential to enhance
feed intake by fish. Natural ingredient sources which exhibit attractant or feeding
stimulant properties are responsible for the attractant property of natural ingredient.
Paul et al. (2004) reported use of the combination of plant-based attractants, in the
feed of Labeo rohita fry at 1% level of inclusion. Kalita et al. (2005) reported that
tribal people of Assam practise fish attractants against the escapement of fish from
ponds during flood. Such plant-based attractants has also been used by the traditional
fish anglers to catch fish. Incorporation of Livol (a herbal growth promoter, Indian
Herbs) in fish has been reported to improve growth (Maheshappa, 1994; Gireesha et
al., 2002). Harada et al. (1996) reported the attraction activities of terrestrial
vegetables extracts for aquatic animals from Japan; they identified 36 kinds of
vegetables that show the attraction activities. Accordingly, the highest activities
were observed in soyabean for black abalone, cabbage for weather fish and onion for
yellow tail. Citarasu (2010) reported that herbs and spices have been reported to
promote appetite stimulation. Venkateshwarlu et al. (2009) reported that attractant
appetite activity of different herbs is species-specific in case of Indian Major Carp.
The rationale behind the use of feed attractants is to improve dietary feed intake at
a faster rate so as to minimize the leaching of water soluble nutrients, and wastage
of feed. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to evaluate some selected plantbased attractants in Labeo rohita fingerlings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six feeds were formulated with mustard cake, soyabean meal, rice bran,
vegetable oil, vitamin and mineral mixture as the basal diet with the incorporation
of five different plant-based attractants at 1% levels. One formulation without attractant
served as control (A0). The attractants used were Ekangi (Kampferia galanga),
Kharboj (Cucumis melo), Chotokakla (Piper cubeba), Tambul (Zanthoxylum
acanthopodium) and Lata kasturi (Abelmoschus moschatus) designated as A1, A2, A3,
A4 and A%, respectively. The selection of the attractants was based on their use for
alluring fish during harvest and angling by traditional fish farmers (Paul et al., 2012).
The ingredients were finely powdered and sieved through 200 mm mesh. The
ingredients were weighed separately and after through mixing with water fortified
with vitamin-mineral mixture and oil. The dough so obtained was extruded through
a 1.0 mm diameter die in a feed pelletizer. The pellets were sun dried, crumbled
and packed in plastic air tight containers and stored at room temperature.
The rohu fingerlings were collected from Regional Research Centre of Central
Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture (CIFA), Rahara, Kolkata and acclimatized in
wet laboratory for two weeks by feeding a commercial carp diet, CIFACA. Groups
of 15 fingerlings (av. weight 3.600.06g) were stocked in fibre reinforced plastic
tanks (0.30 m2) in triplicates for each dietary treatment. All the tanks were plumbed
with a flow through water system and the flow rate was maintained at one litre/min.
Stored ground water was used for rearing the fish. The fingerlings were fed to
290

Plant-based attractants for Labeo rohita

satiation daily for entire period of the experiment i.e., 90 days. Feed was offered
in two divided meals at 10.00 AM and 04.00 PM.
Body weight of fish was recorded at fortnightly intervals. At the end of the
experiment individual body weight of all fishes in each tank was recorded. Growth
performance and feed utilization efficiency, net weight gain, specific growth rate
(SGR), feed intake, feed conversion ratio (FCR) and protein efficiency ratio (PER)
were determined adopting standard procedures (Paul et al., 2014). Feeds and carcass
samples were analysed for proximate principles as per standard procedures (AOAC
1995). Water quality parameters like pH, DO, temperature were measured as per
the method of APHA (1989).
Growth data were analysed using one-way ANOVA (Snedecor and Cochran
1968) and difference between the means of treatments were examined using least
significance difference.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Ingredient and proximate composition of experimental feeds are presented in
Table 1. Table 2 represents the growth performances of the rohu fed different feeds.
The proximate compositions of different feeds were similar. The initial BW of the
fish of each group was similar (P>0.05). The net weight gain (g) was 1.090.31,
Table 1. Feed formulations and proximate composition of experimental diets
Dietary groups
A2
A3

A4

A5

Ingredient composition (% as-fed basis)

Mustard oil cake
35
35

35

35

35

35

Soyabean meal

30

30

30

30

30

30

Rice bran

26

25

25

25

25

25

Vit-Min premix

Vegetable oil

Ekangi

Kharboj

Awbel

Particulars

A0

A1

Tambul

Latakasturi

Proximate composition (% DM basis)

Protein
30.13
30.43

29.82

29.94

29.92

30.6

Fat

5.62

5.75

5.21

5.72

5.40

5.46

Ash

11.05

13.0

13.25

13.0

12.25

14.75

Basal diet supplemented with no attractant (A0) or with Kampferia galanga (A1), Cucumis melo (A2), Piper
cubeba (A3), Zanthoxylum acanthopodium (A4) and Abelmoschus moschatus (A5).

Vitamin and mineral mixture as per Paul et al. (2004)

291

Paul and Giri

Table 2. Growth performance of rohu fingerlings fed with different plant-based attractants
Particulars

A0

A1

Initial wt.(g)

3.690.01

3.780.08

Final wt.(g)

4.780.31

Net gain (g)

1.09b0.3

SGR (%/d)

0.280.07b

FCR

3.97c0.9

PER

1.19c0.28

0.64a0.01

Dietary groups
A2
A3

A4

A5

3.250.05

3.610.14

3.680.01

3.750.19

5.830.03

5.830.03

4.560.40

4.850.04

4.310.23

2.05c0.05

2.58d0.08 0.95ab0.55 1.17b0.03

0.56a0.04

0.48c0.02

0.65d0.02 0.26ab0.14 0.30b0.01

0.15a0.01

2.11a0.02

2.01a0.05

3.98c1.31 3.56bc0.02 5.91d0.24

0.61a0.04

1.18c0.37

1.06b0.02

1.81d0.09

Basal diet supplemented with no attractant (A0) or with Kampferia galanga (A1), Cucumis melo (A2), Piper
cubeba (A3), Zanthoxylum acanthopodium (A4) and Abelmoschus moschatus (A5).

Means with different superscript in a row differs significantly (P< 0.05)

abcd

2.050.05, 2.580.08, 0.950.55, 1.170.03 and 0.560.04, respectively, in groups

A0 to A6. The net weight gain and SGR was significantly (P<0.05) higher in A3
vis--vis other groups. The FCR and PER was significantly lower (P<0.05) in group
A3 followed by A2. Lower the FCR value, better in the feed conversion in term of
growth production; similarly lower the protein efficiency, greater is the protein
utilization. Feed searching pattern and therefore the feed intake is one of the most
important behavioural pattern exhibited by fish (Venkateshwarlu et al., 2009).
Incorporation of attractants in fish feed reportedly had positive effect on prawn
(Harpaz, 1997) and rohu (Paul et al., 2004) similar to the present findings. Paul et
al. (2004) had used a combination of five plant attractants @1% in the feed of rohu
fry. However, in this experiment individual plant attractants were used where Kharboj
(Cucumis melo) performed better in rohu fingerlings. In another study, Paul et al.
(2014) reported that dietary incorporation of Awbel (Cuscuta reflexa) at 1% level
improved performance in mrigal fingerlings. In catfish Ompok pabda incorporation of
1% Ekangi (Kampferia galanga) enhanced feed intake and growth performance (Paul
et al., 2012). Harpaz (1997) further reported that addition of an attractant to the
water leads to an additional thirst for food searching activity. The increase in food
searching behaviour was accompanied by olfactory nerves associated with taste or
feeding behaviour (Nakajima et al., 1989). Incorporation of plant protein instead of
animal protein is one of the focus areas for aquaculture practices. Formulation of fish
feed is being reoriented to incorporate plant proteins instead of fish meal. But the
use of these plant proteins in fish feed introduces an alien taste and flavour to the
feed which would reduce the feed intake (Paul et al., 2012). To combat such situation
in fish feed management, the application of feed attractants may stimulate the feeding
and acclimatize fish to less palatable protein source (Venkateshwarlu et al., 2009).
Incorporation of such attractants in fish feed will open new areas of research for
incorporation of unconventional fish feed ingredients in aquaculture.
The carcass composition of rohu fingerlings are presented in Table 3 and it did
not differ significantly (P>0.05) among the groups fed with different plant-based feed
292

Plant-based attractants for Labeo rohita

Table 3. Carcass composition (% as such basis) of rohu fed with different plant-based attractants
Particulars

A0

A1

Dietary groups
A2
A3

A4

A5

Moisture

79.00.09

78.690.25 78.520.11 78.940.53 78.660.34 78.580.01

Protein

10.90.15

10.940.03 10.750.03 11.270.69 11.340.22 11.180.01

Fat

2.560.07

2.650.13

2.860.06

2.820.10

2.760.005

2.800.03

Ash

3.390.01

3.460.01

3.210.01

3.260.09

3.350.15

3.390.03

Basal diet supplemented with no attractant (A0) or with Kampferia galanga (A1), Cucumis melo (A2), Piper
cubeba (A3), Zanthoxylum acanthopodium (A4) and Abelmoschus moschatus (A5).

Values are represented as mean S.E. of triplicate samples

attractants. This is in agreement with earlier observation (Paul et al., 2004; 2012).
In order to make aquaculture profitable, more number of plant-based ingredients are
being used for preparation of fish feed as availability of fish meal is becoming scarce.
Thus the palatability and dry matter intake of such feed can be enhanced by incorporation
of attractants in fish feed. based on the present study, it is concluded that use of
Kharboj at 1% level in the diet of rohu fingerlings could lead to their improved
growth performance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors express their gratitude to the Director, CIFA, Kausalyaganga for
providing necessary facilities to conduct the experiment.

REFERENCES
AOAC. 1995. Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed. Association of Analytical Chemists Washington, DC.
APHA. 1989. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water. American Public Health
Association, Washington, DC.
Citarasu, T. 2010. Herbal biomedicines: a new opportunity for aquaculture industry. Aquaculture
International, 18: 403-414.
Gireesha, O., Ramesha, T.J., Varghese, T.J. and Manjappa, K. 2002. Impact of dietary Livol on the
growth, biochemical composition and gut digestive enzyme activity of Catla (Catla catla) (Hamilton).
Journal of Aquaculture in the Tropics, 17: 35-42.
Harada, K., Miyasaki, T. and Karimata, A. 1996. Attraction activities of the terrestrial vegetables
extracts for aquatic animals. Fisheries Science, 62: 675-682.
Harpaz, S. 1997. Enhancement of growth in juvenile freshwater prawn, Macrobrachium rosenbergii,
through the use of chemo attractant. Aquaculture, 156: 221-227.
Jones, K.A. 1992. Fish chemoreception. In: Food Search Behaviour in Fish and the Use of Chemical Lures
in Commercial and Sports Fishing (Ed. T.J. Hara), Chapman and Hall, London, p. 288.
Kalita, B., Dutta, A. and Choudhury, M. 2005. Fish attractant an indigenous device to prevent the
escapement of fishes. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 40: 91-93.
Maheshappa, K. 1994. Effect of Different Dosages of Livol on Growth and Body Composition of Rohu,
Labeo rohita (Ham.). MFSc Thesis, University of Agricultural Science, Bangalore, India.

293

Paul and Giri

Mukhopadhyay, P.K. and Paul, B.N. 1995. Values addition components in Aquaculture feeds. Fishing
Chimes, 6: 15-16.
Nakajima, K., Uchida, A. and Ishida, Y. 1989. A new feeding attractant, dimethyl--propiothein for
freshwater fish. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi, 55: 689-695.
Paul, B.N., Rangacharyulu, P.V., Sarkar, S. and Mukhopadhyay, P.K. 1996. Effect of feed color on
the growth performance and activity of digestive enzymes in Rohu (Labeo rohita) fry. Journal of
Aquaculture, 4: 15-18.
Paul, B.N., Das, S., Giri, S.S. and Mukhopadhyay, P.K. 2012. Effect of Plant based attractants on
growth and feed utilization in Ompok pabda (Siluridae) fry. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition,
29: 169-173.
Paul, B.N., Pandey, B.K. and Giri, S.S. 2014. Effect of plant based feed attractants on growth of
Cirrhinus mrigala fingerlings. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology, 14: 393-398.
Paul, B.N., Sarkar, S., Mohanty, S.N. and Mukhopadhyay, P.K. 2004. Effect of dietary attractant on
feed utilization and growth of Rohu Labeo rohita (Ham.) fry. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology,
4: 145-152.
Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. 1968. Statistical Methods, 6th ed. Oxford and IBH Publishing
Company, Calcutta, India.
Venkateshwarlu, G., Muralidhar, A.P., Ramesh, R. and Pal, A.K. 2009. Plants traditionally used in
fish harets and angling potential feed attractants in aquaculture. Indian Journal of Traditional
Knowledge, 8: 539-542.

294