Proceedings of the 2nd National Conference 
on Organic Agriculture in Nigeria 
#ame Address 
Rof.Admye, G O  Qe@uhmto f&mmmy, University oflbdm 
ProL Omaeli, J.AA ~ e a t o f A g r o n o m yW,  v e i s i t y o f ~  
Prof Addbm,J.A ~ f O r A g r i ~ ~ a m d ~ ~ - T ' ) , ~  
Dr.A.Om0kp kqmtmePltnfCPH3, U* oflbadaa 
Dr. Adebisi, L A kp&meat OfPomhy R s M @ Unkrsily oflbadan 
Dr.AdeQhw& 0.0. mparhmt ofA&Kmoo~yw, vt!ady of. ib&m 
Dr.*4hdB OYSADEP 
r ) r . W e , B k O  ~ f o a A g r i c - ~ w l d T ~ g f m T ~ ~  
Dr.Ahqm,JJ Univdty ofAgic&m (UNAA33), Abea%uta 
X)LAwhyin.RO ~ o f C r o p ~ m a o d E uW~ Bi ology, University of 
h d a l  
Dr, B A A k M d e  ~ e n t dUnive~rsity o,fibad aa 
Dr. Faglqkk, J.A Dqmdment ofA groaamy, U n k d yo f lbadan 
lk. Faghm, JA 
Dr. Zpimnnroti, RX ~B o w e~n U ~ , ~ w o . ~ s f & t e  dN@ (CmXh Bd#l 
Dr. L. -la Departmat dAgmmmySU nivdty  oilbadm 
Dr. O d e h k A C  Depmmt 0fBOmy Mimbiology, UnivmiQ of Ibadan 
Dr. Okogun, JA Department OfApwmy, w i of lbadm  
Dr,Otaaj.an,M M ~-Institute (N~iHOI1T) l  
Dr.Sanibare,MA Dept of plmmqmq, mvtmii  of lbdm 
Dr. Taiwo, L.B W t r d e  foeAgrk. Research and Traimhg W T ) , m edan 
I)r.E.AAiyehi Dqmiwmt OfAgmmny, univet~ityo f lb&n 
Miss Fayemi F o k e  lkparhlent QfAgrmmy, UUrriversity o f l b  
Mr P. o p g b e  Dep-ent ufAgmmmy, lhivedty of IWm 
Mr. D U . s hdeke Fomay R e S E d lh £dhbo f Nigeria (Fm) 
Mr. 0- Olawdc w e n t of*. Ecmda,  Cfniversity of Zbadan. 
Mr.mofrmFewsja DqmttnWlt QfA$gmmyU, nivemiQ of lb?tdan 
Mr. SB.E iaye Fed. Min. ofAgric. & Raraf Devpt, PRSD, GarkjA bujn 
h S AA dejumo ~ d ~ & W a t e r ~ s @ &  
h A h b i i A H  Dqmhmt of a l e ,V oiversity of l w m  
Comparative Study o f 8 ~ 0 f ~ P ~ d H R~hHa tln;skdhh as 
Orgmic Potassiwn Somes u n O h ( ~ ~ ~L mo~ench] l m m  
Rodwrwa. A d e O I m  0.0.,G Q. Admy2 sndA.0. M 
M a n a g e n I e n t o S C~o ~d- ~ 0'~OqgmbIiywiChNcean l edE xtracts from Szmma Zones dN&& PeIwIa &cilia .O,. 
F a d i m a & a a r P i . O , ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 e A ~ M  
Effmso fAp#cah ofOqpk a nd- f N iF H -  on the G r m h  
and D r y h t k rM eld ofkmmilm (Amammh -1. D. S Dmmofa, 
R S . A ~ i m d D . L c n v a l  
The P o h W o f Cow B l dM d-nrmm Content Bled as P& or Complete 
Replacement fw Fish M d i a C t m i a r p i q hd~ie ts. O h k 0 .; K 0. Tehvo; 
M. C -; m d  G 0.A g h w b  
FmTMDD S W EC ONTBQLJNO R-C AGRLCULTum 
In&leaceoFPigCQnxpo~trn~&e~~es~s-wi tb~ea~f l . )~ t  
Sou81 We%em Nigeria AWgwu, J- J., 8. 0.& 5Imi, S. 0. Adigbo, 
a 3. d T .A . Agbaofa 
B i d m y o f Wood& of Six Trophl as O q p kP rotectants of Gwp 
gmhs against C a C ~ o h h r t Ph  r t p hh b, (Bmchhc c d ~in s)tore.  
C k P t o i ~ A Aa*n d Crmufe, GE. 
0RGArYJ.C RElLATED ISSUES 
Effect ofmerent Organ+ D r g a n o - l F d h ( O w a n Ma@ Sm@m and 
&vmbt  Orowtb and field in kucbi Miieria Oio, A. M.;U muedf,, A d.t And 
K 5. Akmbi 
O r g a n o - n l i l l e d F ~ E ~ m ~ A n d Y i e M o f W h i & Y m  
(Diuscmam lundak) mader Natural and hkama Fallow in SauthmtN igeria. 
LxwdO-l., G O . ~ t d R A s ~  
A p p I ~ ~ 1 o f I n o ~ F ~ a n d P o d t r y M a r t u P e ~ S o l g b o m C m d e  
Prawn, %&andI k w Q 1P ammAem*W h . U "L ., U.E  ahy,L . Afzp1; 
8.A . Bahoji; E. C. Odlon mrd B. M. Smti 
TEE POTENDAL OF COW BLOOl3 MEALRUMFA CONTENT BLEND AS PARTIAL OR 
C 0 M P Z ; E T E R E P U ~ F O RES EMEALIN CLARtAS GARIEPlMJS DIETS. 
O M 4 0. ; V. 0. -0; M C OICO~KW1O~l;dG   O*Agboola, 
Departmeat of Wildlife md Fhk& Mamgemen~U Mxty-bfI bedan, lbadan Nigeria. 
v m r y D epartmen5 IlaIvemiQ sfmadan, &adan Wlgmh. 
Ahstract 
A-7-y study iavdgated the nutritional potential of cow blood men cantent blend, its dec t  w the growth 
pea$- and hematological response. of the f h g d q s  of Clmias gmfqin~s. TrpliW groups of ten C. 
-in= f m g m , a verage weight 0.79 A 0.20 g in .8L ofmte~usin2g0  G circular plastic tanks- fed with 
five pmctidtyp diets mnbahhg 40% cmk protein (CP).T he dim bad aieir dietmy pro* s o dh m :(I ), 
1W h.fi sh mad +Ic%owbio od -nrme n. matblend (CEtRB)I (2) 25% FM + 75% C33IB; (3) 50% F'M 
+ 50% CBm, (4) 25% FM+75% /om; (5) OQ5FM-k1 Wh CBRBrq&veb Fish f d h g w a s  done daily at 
S%bodywe~butl~reduoedto3%~theftflhrveek.Blood~I~~w11&fromf3ish pwrfreatmmt 
a t ~ e b e ~ a n d e a d ~ f ~ ~ e r r t ~ T h e ~ @ r t y ~ m ~ r e d t h r ~ ~ o u t t h e e ~ e n t  
The man weight gaiu WEIS highmt (7.92d in ths fish fed die?o f 25% CBR3 ine1wiw and law& (6.43g) in the 
100% CBW but no sigd~can~t ~ c e wo a bs d be tween k M W G o f &h feddiet l(7.26 g) and 2 (7.92 g). 
The feed conversion (FCR) and Fmtein EffichcyM o (PE R) were Brghest in hf ish fed the (PA CBRB), (2. i . 
0.85) mpctivdy and lowest in the 5sh fM diel  -oc 10Wh CBRB (1.7,0.69) mpdvely. There was no 
-cant m e W . D S )  k theFCRand PERv~hreos f fish fed the cmlrol and diet2, (2.0,O.S 1). The waiw 
qualiiy in alf the tmments did not vary m d w l y  from the recomtllended dues nor did the hcmtologicd 
d t s & o w e d a n y a n a e m i c c ~ ~  
KEY WORD: Cow blood meal-mmm G Q I bl~end~, C I&s gmiepim, grow& performance, hematology, 
n l x t & i d W t i d  
Introdactron peacentage of fa4s. This makes the mad a uwfd 
ma inmasiagly high CQst of &h pldUf5iun jn the alternate to &&md and other protein supplements. 
tropics demands that altermh ebaaptlr mma3 of H m r , ,t he quality of blood meal varies greatly due 
fed ingdenis be i n d g a k d  to reduce the ammt to animals. The healthier the animals, the more the 
depend- on costly conventional ingredients W e  p i e i nc mtmt (BeldAe, 1992). Tkdbre, Iheuse of 
h e a l .  Cow b l d  meal (CBM) a d  Cow ramen b h d  m d a s feed could be either beneficial or 
content (CkC) are animal$ ~ ~ c twhisch h,ave  dbadmus, but ifwell p d and inm rporatd into 
~ t ~ ~ a s ~ v e ~ ~ e MnIdi eft in .a su~hbiea proproaiwe, dri ed blood meal: will 
readily available cheap prate 80- mmmended compete fwmably with fisb meal in aquaahre  
in 5sh diet especially for a&& with partimlar (LP* 1987). 
referencet o Ciwiasgarieph. Caw b f da nd rumen The ned to d l i s hf ezding standards fm fish based 
c~~mtsmwastedat~whenzvminants l ikeo n e q e h e n t s  performed in the tropics utihzhg 
6 0 a~re  sknxghkd. However, raw blood m d h as a n i d  by-prodacts has been well .emphasized 
k~fmd~contain80%watermd2W~s~lidsamlis@& ga andhpree, 1976)md Q t u h i n a ndAnrxchi 
uwy rich in pmbh Aborrt %of i&d i dm & d si s (1987) and in growiog awarenms of the nutritive value 
p m b i n ~ m w1,9 8 9 ) . T f m e & e r c o ~ t s a r e d  of mind bygmhct (regarded a waste) as &mate 
quantities of s u p ,  chulestemI, l ec f in ,  fak sodium, mums uf feed h g d h t s ,  studies are needed to 
potassium, cdclum, magnesium, chlorineb and provide useful data to complement the scanty 
phcsph~ric acid. Iron however, is present in mom do^^ on potentials of local fed  materids 
compmtivdg large amarts because of blood pdcukdp  animal by-products. Fmoti  and Ayinls 
w m -  (1998) smd thatrnb C gdepinus mi do 
Canvmely, rumen cwteot (&-digatdJ well with cmde protein eontent of between 374% 
foodfomd in the firstsfomacb afberbimmm anhtub), when grown in earthen ponds. Dupree and Runer 
when dry, contains between 1IPh - 2% pro* (1984) reported ihe protein qairemenf of different 
dqm&ng on lhe pstwe aad diet FAO,1 989). Apart f& specie and a linear ~ltzthshiipw as estabIisbed 
6-m pmtems, ramen contmf is rkb in vitami=, between&& weight gain and dietmy pratein at arange 
minerais and ~h~ It dm has a d of 2056 - W ! ,S hepherd (1992) iwe5tiWed the 
o ~ p r o t e i n ~ f o r d i £ f i m m AtU ~dat~a c ollstd were subjected to statistical analysis 
and bas shown supkhgly  few d&mm He d u gd piso f variance (ANOVA) a dt he tmtment 
observedtlnat3S4S%cnrcle~infishdi&~dd compared the Dumm's mdliplc m e te st 
~ m * m ~ ~ ~ T h De aoid~(1995u). . f  
these previous resarchers engendered this 
investigation to wramine ihe ptentiaf d rsow b b d  Read& 
~ c ~ - b ~ ~ a c c B w ) ~ r tTa~ble ~1 s~howos thme Prpoxim~ate  C ~ i t i o onf  Cow 
replacemmtforii!zhwdinthedietofCg~~. Rmen Content (CRQ, Cow Bloorl (CB)m ixed with 
what  brrrn (CBR)m d COW B h d M eal {CBM). The 
~ ~ s a a d l C l l ~  Cl3 mixed with whet# bran % CIW* Rotein (CP)o f 
The 0 0 w b l ~ o l o I I e E t e d ~ abnm~bd~ ~  ~ L Q c o with~Mm~d(72~%CPy] far  
in wheat bran (vh), sm-dried fur 4 $ays a d  ~ ~ M m ~ ( F M ) s n d 6 5 % C P f o r t h e l o c a f  
s u b s e g u ~ ~ t o a ~ T b ~ c m r tFeM nHotw ever, &the CRC bd a high fiber c o ~ e a t  
f r o m & u ~ ~ ~ * m I l d h &(33u21% ) cwnpad to CBMs low fib content 
dmttoir, sun dried for 6 and ground @mum, ( I . O 0 / 8 ~ , b u t ~ ~ b i n whhnalotw aed t b e f k  
1989). F i v ~ ~ & ~ w e r e ~ d t h dconiteenf to 1 1 . 6 4 % . ~ ~ ~ o f Ci gRh wCn   
1a s t h e ~ l a n d ~ ~ ~ d i ~ 2 , 3to ,va4ry ,a5wu dhg to tfx feedstuff on which the 
mnhkted 25%, SV?,73 40, 100034 cow blood rumen nrminaat feeds m @Cumor, 19891. Table 2 shows the 
blend (CBRB) respectively. The Proximate ~ ~ o f t h c e x p e r h n d d i e t s w i t h C o w  
comp~itimo fthe Cuw Rmen C o m a  (CRC) caw Blood Rumen Blend (CBRB) included m t graded 
blmd~i;nWh&Bran(cE%)andCowBtood l~s .Diet1hdi tsCPm~fxDmo%CBRBaod 
M # f ( C ~ k s h o P P n k ~ l e l w h k t f i e ~10 09!FMwhikdietShad~FMd1OOPXCBR 
~ i t i r m o fdie~tsisionTa~ble2~.  w h i l e ~ 2 , 3 d 4 h a & 2 5 % C B R B + 7 5 % ~ 5 W A  
l k 1 0 w ~ g t a d y w a c o n d u c t e d i n t h e ~ o fC BRB + 50% FM and 75% C3RB + 2$% FM 
thelkpdmcnt ofWildlifeandPMegMamgme&, ~ ~ . T & k 3 ~ d s ebffehctoefth deed h a k t  
Unimsity of lbadan, f*bwdm , M& Ooe hundred as ehrcidakd by the $tow& performance indices. The and Wky C. g d ~ o fmep mnlage h ~ ~ & e d ~ w d e d id tnb e~ t 2  
~ f g n d O m j Y ~ t o t h e ~ ~ i~n t~r e 1a t m0 e  Q t 5 C r ~ ~ ~ o w e d b y t h e v d u e s o f  
~ g s l , E a n k j n * ~ p e r t r e a t m e n t . B a t c h  ~ d i & 1 ~ i s I h e ~ 1 & e L  
~ghhgofthe&qedhgsincwhCankwasdoneatih Supplementdm of CBRB s ipibnt ly  (P0.05) 
beginnhg of&e experimentandeverytwowedwtill imprwedfd ~ p t i m o v e r t f a e ~ l ( 2 3 7 2 4 g )  
t b t m d o f ~ e ~ e n t . T h e ~ w e r e M ~-W5 i%& ~e 0 ~ T U k 3 t ~ 5hl0 / po f- bIdU!ib~ w e r g h t b r r t a d j w t e d ~ 3 K i n ~ e ~ ~ W e i (g2k7 l A $ ) ~ m d t h e l ~ alWth CBRhhffion(234.5 weretaken usingawmiiived igital scale. Wabrqrralit). & . T h ~ ~ s b o w e d t h a t ~ t m ~ 2 h a d t h e  w a s r ~ e l y m o n i t a p e d ~ t h e e q d m n t dh ighest mean wew gain (7.92 g) h U d by  period the m e k d  dwai'bsd by Boyd (1980). lrdmmts I e.26 g), 3 (6,87g), 4 (6,26& and S (53%) P r o x ~ ~ 1 6 t o f t h e ~ w a S d w e W m  Over&, batmeat 5 bad the lowest mean 
and ~ t h e ~ u s i a g t b Oe .A. C , (1991) weight~Therewasmsig&mt~~~inthe 
methods.Thef&tjuk,offbeeqmimd&& R d  Co~~~mi]oRnati on (Fa) of &e CBRB 
~ F o d e a n d ~ p e r f a r r t n a n c e w e r e l a f e rw rpplmented diet and the contrd. This imptie thaf all 
wduatda~s hmin(TabIe3). the diets bave Mi acqtability and was equally 
~ h ~ t o i ~ g a m p l e s w e r e t a b t ~ ~d@a-du- d  
hntdafeb a h th e was t a m M  TmatumtZhadthehghestpmtein~ebut 
T h r e e f i s h ~ ~ ~ m e n tin ~ma~w ofb Proytefn  EfficimR atio (PER), lrexbm 2 
decapitation ad bled into EDTA (mtkwgdant) Mtbe &hmt PER which* significantly 0
w@Ab ib far p h ! m  mlkzlim and analyzed di&mtfrom b & h e r ~ e n &Tm. t mnts2,3,4 
P ~ k e d C e l I W b r m e ~ , r e d W dare~ n ot sigaibtly different from each other, 
~ C ) , W h i t e B Z o o d ~ ~ a n d H ~ o Hb imna ,  lratmmt 5 was s w a n @  (IW.05) 
(Hb) were determined by W~introk ~micro-  d B r &  *the rest and had the lowest PER value. heamate improved Nabsuer The impiiariw ofthis dmmwtioa is that 10 003 CBM3 
and cyanwn~emOgld3inm ethods-yely. M m  ~ e n t ~ n a t m ~ o p t i m u m g r~o l e r t b o f  Corpusclar Hemoglobin WCH) and Mean C g ~ i R u s ~ ~ w h i c h ~ b Q ~  
Cmpmuhr  HmwgIabin Commtdon (Mac) of Ohhale (1996), and OlukurlIe et UL (2005) in 
w a er a l c u ls~s & &bedby J&, 119%). which 100% soIveot extracted sesame seed cake and 
-far atu zakn 9ad gmdh of ex@nental fi&. Uf- md Ugwumr (1985) reported &mewing bmds in gmv&k of T i k ( h h i s n i'lorbs) ~ m f h e ~ ~ b b h ld  wa~s m - ~  ianeased,in-thed k k S him d aJ (1988) a s m t d  &at Collwlt in fk l  decms€w nutrient 
~ o I L ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ .  
NRC (19831 * --. iacmmd levels of 
b WI Win &h f k d  diets Iw platable. Hence, 
hmwkg CBRB t a d  to &crew s-. protein 
c m e & , ~ t f i a ~ ~ ~ ~ t o f t h e  
%hhaUthetmbentsfl&le4).The 
~ i s t m c o n t e n t j , ~ w i $ l m l w e ~  
ofCBR&4nhdieZgcantwJinItedwitbthedea%ein 
f a ~ o f & i h ~ w a t e r i f i e M t e a d s t o  
~ ~ t h c ~ o f ~ d s :  
Loud Ct97Q obs&ved an reIhonsbip 
bHmm mistme mitmt andfish lipid. F a y e ( 1888) 
~ e d ~ ~ i n t b e ~ ~ ~ o f  
m a tm k indheQcts 6fT"hpia ( OnmhtontSs 
dww]. 
~ ~ p c V , H b , R B C ) ~ e s o f C  
g r i t f p f w ~ & o w n h T a H e 5u  p p c b d a s  
& e ~ d m ~ b l e n d h d T h i s h r a n  
indication that #e dkb improved the fish health and 
b i d ~ ~ a n g ~ ~ o n ~ h e a l t h a I i d  
Hwd mmp&ion neiflwrm an d c situat ion 
Thehigh * o ~ a ~ 0 f ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3O2 1M%-ia ~ L)Uf h  0 fdl p l d 0 0 the expimead 
tmd the blood miegZ *eawm*m (ll.a4%) d k k  
m y ~ l & i n ~ e ~ o n i n t h e ~ i nCot- h e  
~ ~ ~ f & e ~ ~ h T h i $ t r w nThdis mi ae ~ t ~ h at  CBRB -Id be 
R c w a  and Wesky (l975)h in their ~ e d ~ ~ d i e t s ul ~p~ ht ios i  o r t l e v e l  
~ w i i b c ~ ~ ~ with~out adm- .  k m s e  nwe of fhe diets 
T h 5 ~ i ~ i U ~ p we ~t ~ h a ~n ~ ~ p n ofisnh. t & e  
~ m gOfdie5rayCB~RB Ob sertredinTable3 Hmewr,frurn~e an intKcm 
migbtbdueWtheiabalyceb.W&dp% level of3596 *e;s optimum gmwtbprfmce and 
iuthebhdwhidmds in t $ e ~ b d m h d s o ptimmah-l@da-. 
WldeZ: G t g g g c m ~ @ ~ € t e e e x p e b d d i efe$dl C ~*tphus£hgdqg 
Thblek G r a dp dormaaceIndioehl * e d ~ u ~ t U ~ ng&o+fnwC$fin $erlings fed 
~ e t s s u ~ ~ ~ , ~ n t e d w i & C o w - b ~ R ~ e(nCBRlB)e n d  
Perfmmmce&dim 1{W61 2 (25%) 3 (5W!) 4n5%1 51100%1 
ExpwhmtaI days 70 70 70 .70 - 70 
Number offishstocked 30 30 30 30 30 
M m * )  21 2 1 21 22 23 
P - m d ( % )  70 70 70 73.30 76.70 
W Mean Weight (g) 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.78 q.80 NS 
Final Mean Weight # 8.05' 8-71' 7-66" 7.wd 6.62' 
Meall Weight @in( g) 726' 7.92' 6.8T 6.26' 5.82' 
M m w eight @ d f ~ ~(gh) 0.1 0 0-11 0.09 0.08 0.OSNS 
Total feed intake (g) 23724 271.W 238.98. 241- 92' 234.5' 
Feed intake/ day1 iish (g) 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.1 INS 
Foad h e m i o n r ation FCR)2.10 2.00 2.00 1.80 f .7tNS 
M n h W ( g )  95-33' 108.8$ 95.60' 95-78' 93.81" 
M m Pr oteitl Illtake. (g) 953' 10.Wb 9.56* 9.68' 9.38' 
Protein Efficiency Ratio IPER)~.~!? 0.8 l* 0.7Y 0.73' 0.69' 
Table 4: C a m p roximate analysis ef C & p h s  hgwUHp befom and after expriment  
End 
1 Control 62.lQ 6.37' 4.W 3.68' 1 3 S 9 20' 
2 64.14' 6.32 2.9g 3.50' 13.14' 9.35' 
3 61.41b 6.93' 2.7 1' 3.48' 1 4 a b  11 ~ 3~ 
4 60-13' 7.28' 3.81' ~ . 9 31~4.2 !ib 11.57~ 
5 60.0T 6 ~ - 4 32~.$6 b 14-23' 12.05~ 
MEAN* SEM 6 1.58 k0.50 6.75 & 3-5 I * 329A 13.9 1 * 10.68 * 
nble 5: Hematologicalktalysis of C gu&phw GngerUngg fed graded inclusion iwels of Cow blogd Ramen 
( H b y l m  8.4 * 0.01' 10.40' 11.0 a.2 10.01rOl 115;o.Z' lZ(wO.2 
h c k e d d  
d u m e  26..OVO&Y 3 W . $  34.01i~1.2' 30.W3 36.W.5 38.M.6' 
Red B W Ce ll 
Count xlO1:/l 13W.02' 2.HH0.01' 1.7W.01 2.7M.01h 2.4020.1V . 2.SM.01 
wxk Blood Cell 
Cormt X0I9 /1 6-40" 7.90' 6.4# 5.W 8.00' 7.20" 
MeanCorp- 
%I. (WyI fl 119M.W L23-08i~l.T 197.67AlT I 102W3-? 15U.0&0,93' 1S ZMkt1.6* 
~ C w p u s c u l a r H e m o ~  
W.d l00 ('%(MCA%q I33 ,s' 325U 3235 33.33 31.94' 3 1 5 8  
Ueen~scutarRtmogbbin 
MCR )pg) ZQ.95+0.01'40.0&&1Q 63.95M.02b 36.7W.16 47.9lM.20' a O W . 2 U  
Valuesaremeans* SE. M e a n s ~ ~ ~ e r o w d i f fqm~sxtiIptyed dBersignificautly( W0.051. 
Ayinls, k 0. snd BekiMe, D, 0. 1992. M l y  Kumot, 1 9 8 9 . ~ @ofh id by-products in 
mailable f&g ingrdeots and wrtitioa developing countries. A manual of 
va.hwinN& MOMR Traiai pgmme C o ~ ~ ~ c e C o u n c ~ L o n d o n .  
in k b  fed f d o n a d  produdon, 
Ws,15 92 
O M e O yin d G 0. Aghoola 2OU5. Growth 
l'e&mmnee and mlrient W h ~ mof  
Mcan CatGsb,C doriasgdqpinus 
I%@@ fed diets with graded inclusion 
I d s o h W@ ma sp.) 
Qmrtoyin, B. 0.a nd E. 0.F atwoti 200Q.E valuation of 
chickell offal me81 as pre in  suura for 
A f i i c a n ~ C T a & s g m ~ ~ f i n g e r l ~  
~ i n ~ ~ n d J . o ~ . A t % c a n  
F ~ ~M;4 8~8495.l .  
mwiS . 0.a nd- S. v. 1987. The effect of 
diffmnt ambinations of Industrial and 
A g r i c u h u r a l ~ a s s ~ p p ~ r y f e e d s i n  
Tilapi (0.n ibtiais} fm*. Kainji Lake 
Fatwo& 35. 0.,  and A m A  0. 1998. Research ImtWe Annual Report 19%. - . a*  n d m W o f C  
gmiephw (Btuche~,1 8220 fed $raded Rexes, D. L. and Weley D. E. 1975. A Mood 
p r o t e i n d i e t s , ~ ~ o u r aoaflW &Afrk r n d h n mc .iontents blend aspartial or 
c o m p Ifo~rfh~a l . i n channel 
FA0 1989. FAOAjgic. Semi= Bnlletk, FA0 OW, ah .F& .Cd: 37115 -1 9. 
h e ,19 89. 
Shepherd, I. And B-e, N. 1992. Intensive fish 
FA0 1995. The state of world Fishdm rtnd hnhgB Iackwell ~ d c R r b t i c a t i o n p p .  
Aqtmcdbm Rome, 19 95 143pp. 147-1 54. 
W.E L aadDqme, H. K. 1969. FishNutrition Shiay S. Y; J. L. Chuq d C. L. SWI1 987. hclusion 
I m d f i s h f e e d ~ l i n a d ~ c a i n  of myahan meal in Tipia{ oreochmis 
aguacul t~re .~~T.~RPit layandWin,  ~ m s a n d 0 . dAi e~a tt~wo protein 
A. 0.F A0 (1978) FjsbgNews Book levefs.AquacuI~6 5: 251- 26 1. 
Farham Surrey, %ngwPp . 5 68-574. 
Jain, W.C . 1986. S c h a l m " s YE~hm abI.ogy. 4' 
Mition Lea and Febigw. l'adelelphia. Pp. 
149-162.