0115 966 7955 Today's Opening Times 10:00 - 20:00 (BST)

Production Economics Of Using Watermelon Seedmeal

Published: Last Edited:

Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

PRODUCTION ECONOMICS OF USING WATERMELON SEEDMEAL IN THE DIET OFNILE TILAPIA (Oreochromis niloticus) FINGERLINGS.

Jimoh W.A1 ., Shittu M.O1, Owolade E.O2., Ojutalayo S.T5., Arilesere J.I3., Bernard A. M2 and Ayeloja A.A1.

1Department of Fisheries Technology, Federal College of Animal Health and Production Technology, PMB 5029, Ibadan

2Department of Agricultural Extension, Federal College of Animal Health and Production Technology, PMB 5029, Ibadan

3Library Department, Federal College of Animal Health and Production Technology, PMB 5029, Ibadan

4General Studies Department, Federal College of Animal Health and Production Technology, PMB 5029, Ibadan.

Abstract

The nutritive potential of watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) seedmeal as dietary protein source in the diet of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) using production economics were evaluated in a 56 day feeding trial. 150 tilapia fingerlings of average weight 6.12±0.05g were acclimatized for a week, weighed and allotted into five dietary treatments; containing 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60% Citrullus lanatus replacement levels with soybean meal respectively. The diets were isonitrogenous and isolipidic. Each treatment was replicated three times with ten fish per replicate. Fish were fed 5% body weight on two equal proportion per day. Production Economics analysis was carried out using incidence of cost, profit index, profitability ratio, cost and return analysis as indices. The results of the study indicated the profitability of using watermelon seedmeal by a positive gross margin and net returns. The average gross ratio, benefit cost ratio, return on investment (ROI) and the rate of return (ROR) values on capital invested on producing O. niloticus with diets containing watermelon seedmeals across the different dietary treatment groups were 0.57, 1.76, 0.77 and 0.55 respectively.

Introduction

Watermelon belongs to the family Curcubitaceae. It is a tropical, semi tropical and arid region crop of the world (Razavi and Milani, 2006). It seeds have nutritional density comparable to other oilseed proteins including soybean and other conventional legumes (Mustapha and Alamin, 2012). Wani et al (2011) reported that watermelon seedmeal contains adequate amount of nutritional protein that could be used as nutritional ingredients in food products. More so, there is paucity of information on the use of Citrullus lanatus seeds as dietary protein source of fish feed especially its production economics

Materials and Methods

Sources and Processing of Ingredients.

Sample of dried water melon seeds were obtained in Bodija market, Ibadan, Oyo state. The water melon seed was rinsed with water and boiled for 15 minutes after which it was sundried for some days and then ground in a hammer mill and the oil therein was removed using the pressure generated from locally made screw press (cassava-presser type). The cakes therefore were analysed for their proximate composition (AOAC 1990). Fish meal, soybean meal and other feedstuffs obtained from commercial sources in Nigeria were separately milled screened to fine particles size and triplicate samples were analyzed for their proximate composition (AOAC, 1990).

Table 1: Proximate Composition of the Protein Feed Ingredients

Parameter

Fish meal

Soybean Meal

**CLM

Moisture

9.75

10.70

9.69

Crude Protein

72.4

45.74

19.11

Crude Lipid

10.45

9.68

15.35

Crude Fibre

-

5.10

4.97

Ash

8.32

4.48

5.39

*NFE

-

30.00

45.49

*Nitrogen Free Extract

** Citrullus lanatus Meal

Experimental Diets

Based on the nutrient composition of the protein feedstuffs (Table 1), the experimental diets were formulated (Table 2) containing soybean meal which was replaced by cooked water melon seed meal at the rate of 0, 15, 30, 45, and 60. The diets were isolipidic and isonitrogenous containing 40% crude protein and 10% lipid with fish meal (72%), soya bean meal (45%), fish oil, vitamin premix and starch serving as ingredients. The feedstuffs were ground and water was added to aid binding after which it was introduced into a pelleting and mixing machine to obtain a homogenous mass and then passed through a mincer to produce 2mm size pellet which was immediately sundried at 30 - 32°C. After drying for three days, the diet was kept in a cool place.

Table 2: GROSS COMPOSITION (g/100g) OF EXPERIMENTAL DIETS CONTAINING Citrullus lanatus SEEDMEAL FED TO Oreochromis niloticus

Ingredients

CTR

DT2

DT3

DT4

DT5

Fishmeal

19.44

19.44

19.44

19.44

19.44

Soybean Meal

33.333

28.33

23.33

18.33

13.33

Watermelon

-

11.77

23.55

35.22

47.09

Corn

10.00

10.00

10.00

10.00

10.00

Fish Premix

2.50

2.50

2.50

2.50

2.50

Fish Oil

2.50

2.50

2.50

2.50

2.50

Starch

32.33

25.46

18.68

11.91

5.13

Total

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

* Specification: each kg contains: Vitamin A , 4,000,000IU; Vitamin B, 800,000IU; Vitamin E, 16,000mg, Vitamin K3, 800mg; Vitamin B1, 600mg; Vitamin B2, 2,000mg; Vitamin B6, 1,600mg, Vitamin B12,8mg; Niacin,16,000mg; Caplan, 4,000mg; Folic Acid, 400mg; Biotin, 40mg; Antioxidant 40,000mg; Chlorine chloride, 120,000mg; Manganese, 32,000mg; Iron 16,000mg; Zinc, 24,000mg; Copper 32,000mg; Iodine 320mg; Cobalt,120mg; Selenium, 800mg manufactured by DSM Nutritional products Europe Limited, Basle, Switzerland.

Experimental Fish and System

The experiment was conducted at the hatchery unit of the Federal College of Animal Health and Production Technology, Moor Plantation Ibadan. The tilapia fingerlings were obtained from Masopa fish farm, Ibadan, Oyo state and transported live to the project site in an aerated bag. The initial average weight of the fish was 6.12±0.05 and a total of 150 tilapia fingerlings were acclimated for 7 days prior to the feeding trial while being fed on a commercial pelleted diet. 10 juveniles were allotted into each tank with 3 replicates per treatment. Experimental diet was assigned randomly to the tanks and each were fed 5% body weight per day in two equal proportions between 9.00 –10.00am and 5.00 – 6.00 pm for 56days.

Production Economics Analysis

Production Economics analysis was carried out using the following indices as reported in Faturoti, 1989; Abu et al. 2010; Boateng et al., 2014; Adebayo and Daramola, 2013.

......................................................................................(1)

................................................................................................(2)

.......................................................(3)

..........................................................................................(4)

Where TVC = Total Variable Cost (Cost of fingerlings + Cost of Feeding)

TFC = Total Fixed Cost (Cost of Aquaria Tanks)

Straight line method of depreciation was used to evaluate the cost of Aquaria tank with the following properties .

Cost of Plastic Tanks

N40,000

No of years (life Span)

5 yrs

Savage value

10% of Cost Price

..................................(5)

.............................................................................(6)

........................................................(7)

..............................................................(8)

..................................................................(9)

..............................................................................(10)

...........................................................................(11)

Statistical Analysis

Data obtained from the experiment was expressed in mean ±SD and it was subjected to one way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using SPSS 16.0 version. Where the ANOVA reveals significant difference (P<0.05) Duncan multiple range test was used to compare differences among individual treatment means.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Proximate Composition of Experimental Diets fed to Oreochromis niloticus

Table 3 reveals the proximate composition of experimental diets fed to Oreochromis niloticus. It shows that there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in moisture, protein, lipid, fibre, ash and Nitrogen Free Extract (NFE). All the fish responded well to the dietary treatment given to them.

The table of proximate composition of the experimental diets showed that the various diets prepared were isonitrogenous, isocalorific and isolipidic as there was no significant difference (P>0.05) in the crude protein and crude lipid content of the diets. The protein and lipid requirement of Oreochromis niloticus was met by the 35 and 10% provided in the experimental diets. Jauncey and Ross, 1982; Luquet 1991).

Table 3:PROXIMATE COMPOSITION (g/100g) OF EXPERIMENTAL DIETSCONTAINING Citrullus lanatus SEEDMEAL FED TO Oreochromis niloticus.

Parameters

DT1

DT2

DT3

DT4

DT5

SEM

Moisture

9.66±0.51

9.59±0.59

9.56±0.50

9.88±0.33

9.52±0.52

0.12

Crude Protein

35.22±0.05

35.14±0.16

35.23±0.33

35.222±0.06

35.17±0.23

0.04

Crude Lipid

10.16±0.09

10.15±0.06

10.08±0.03

10.04±0.27

10.19±0.13

0.22

Crude Fibre

4.37±0.36

4.17±0.08

4.12±0.03

4.15±0.05

4.13±0.05

0.04

Ash

5.15±0.20

4.90±0.28

4.66±0.50

5.12±0.37

5.09±0.16

0.09

NFE

35.43±0.53

36.0±0.51

36.34±0.86

35.57±0.57

33.90±0.61

0.26

Total

100

100

100

100

100

 

Figures in each row with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05) from each other

Cost of production of 1kg diet

Table 4 shows the cost (N) of producing 1kg of each diet fed to Orechromis niloticus containing watermelon seedmeal under various replacement levels. There was reduction trend in the cost of producing 1kg of the diets with increasing inclusion of watermelon seedmeal.

Table 4: Cost (N) of producing 1kg of each diet fed to Orechromis niloticus containing watermelon seedmeal

 

Price/kg

DT1

DT2

DT3

DT4

DT5

Fishmeal

500

9.72

9.72

9.72

9.72

9.72

SBM

350

11.67

9.92

8.17

6.42

4.67

WSM

50

0.00

0.59

1.18

1.77

2.36

Corn

120

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

Fish Premix

400

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Fish Oil

750

1.88

1.88

1.88

1.88

1.88

Starch

450

14.50

11.46

8.41

5.36

2.31

Cost N/Kg

 

39.96

35.76

31.54

27.34

23.12

Incidence of Cost Analysis of producing 1kg Oreochromis niloticus

Table 5 shows incidence of cost analysis of producing 1kg of Oreochromis niloticus with diets containing varying replacement levels with watermelon seedmeal. The profit index of fish fed diet DT5 was the best while the fish fed DT1 had the lowest profit index. There existed significant variation (P<0.05) in the profit index of fish fed various dietary treatments. However, there was no significant difference (P>0.05) in the profit index of fish fed DT1, DT2. Similar trends of results as obtained for profit index was also observed for profit/kg of fish produced.

Table 5: Incidence of Cost Analysis of producing Oreochromis niloticus with Diets containing watermelon Seedmeal

   

DT1

DT2

DT3

DT4

DT5

Cost of Feed Fed to the Fish(x10-1)

8.10±0.07a

7.10±0.07b

5.70±0.06c

4.40±0.05d

3.30±0.03d

Weight Gain of Fish (x10-3)

17.70±0.1a

16.40±0.09b

14.50±0.24c

12.80±0.13d

11.70±0.08e

Value of Fish (N)

7.98±0.05a

7.38±0.04b

6.54±0.11c

5.75±0.06d

5.29±0.04e

Profit Index

9.73±0.82c

10.47±1.01c

11.52±1.18bc

13.12±1.31b

15.77±0.96a

Incidence of cost

49.49±4.08a

43.26±4.13ab

39.32±3.89bc

34.53±3.33cd

28.59±1.74d

Profit/kg of Fish

403.51±4.08d

406.74±4.12cd

415.48±3.34bc

410.68±3.80ab

421.41±1.73a

Market Price of 1kg fish = N450

A reversed trend of results to what was observed above for Profit index was observed incidence of cost; incidence of cost of fish fed DT1 was the highest while fish fed DT5 had the lowest incidence of cost. Significant variation (P<0.05) existed in the incidence of cost of fish fed various dietary treatments. However, there was no significant difference (P>0.05) in the incidence of cost of fish fed DT1 and DT2, so also there was no significant difference (P>0.05) in the incidence of cost of fish fed DT4 and DT5. Jimoh et al (2014) reported similar trends of results of incidence of cost analysis when Clarias gariepinus was fed diets containing Chrysophyllum albidum seedmeal.

Cost and Return Analysis

Table 6 shows cost and return analysis of producing Oreochromis niloticus with diets containing varying replacement levels of watermelon seedmeal. The biomass and cost of feeding the Oreochromis niloticus in dietary group 1 was the highest which is significantly different (p<0.05) from the biomass and cost of feeding the Oreochromis niloticus exposed to other dietary treatments. There was significant decrease (p<0.05) in biomass and cost of feeding Oreochromis niloticus with increasing replacement by watermelon seedmeal. This same trends of results was also observed for total variable cost, total revenue and net return.

The average total variable and total cost of producing Oreochromis niloticus with diets containing varying replacement levels of watermelon seedmeal was met or covered by the total revenue realised from the sale tilapia leaving a positive gross margin and net returns in all the dietary treatment groups respectively. Positive gross margin and net returns indicate that it is profitable to feed Oreochromis niloticus with diets containing watermelon seedmeal. Boateng et al (2013) reported a positive operating profit when all variable cost of production of all male tilapia was covered by the gross revenue as an indicator of profitability of all male tilapian aquaculture enterprise in Ghana.

Table 6: Cost and return analysis of producing Oreochromis niloticus with diets containing watermelon seedmeal

 

DT1

DT2

DT3

DT4

DT5

Biomass (kg)

23.85±0.11a

22.52±0.09b

20.71±0.19c

18.85±0.08d

17.86±0.08e

Feed Fed (kg)

20.62±1.69

19.86±1.99

18.13±1.98

16.15±1.64

14.53±0.98

Cost of Feeding

824.29±67.65a

710.03±71.49b

571.72±62.47c

441.32±44.71d

335.98±22.66e

CoF

3,500

3,500

3,500

3,500

3,500

TVC

4,324.28±67.65a

4,210.03±71.49b

4,071.72±62.46c

3,941.32±44.71d

3,835.98±22.66e

*TFC

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

Total Cost

5,524.30±67.65a

5,410±71.49b

5,271.70±62.46c

5,141±44.71d

5,036±22.66e

Total Revenue

10,731±47.26a

10,132.50±40.58b

9,321±83.50c

8,482.50±35.71d

8,035.5±36.37e

Gross Margin

6,406.71±113.01a

5,922.47±31.68b

5,249.28±48..54c

4,541.18±54.41d

4,199.52±13.99e

Net Return

3,124.29±67.65a

3,010.03±71.50b

2,871.72±62.47c

2,741.72±62.47d

2,635.98±22.66e

TVC- Total Variable Cost

TFC-Total Fixed Cost

CoF-Cost of Fingerlings

Profitability Ratio analysis

The profitability ratio analysis of producing Nile tilapia with diets containing watermelon seedmeal is presented in table 7. The highest Expense Structure Ratio (ESR) value was recorded in dietary group 5 which is significantly different (p<0.05) from O. niloticus produced from other dietary treatment groups. However, no significant difference (p>0.05) existed in the ESR value of fish produced by DT1 and DT2. Similarly, there was no significant variation (p>0.05) in the ESR value of fish produced by DT3 and DT4. The average ESR value among the various dietary groups indicated that 22.8% of the total cost was represented by the fixed cost and by contrast indicated that 77.2% of the total cost was represented by the operating cost out of which 14.14 was represented by feeding. The ESR value reported in this study is lower than the value of 43.9% reported by Adebayo and Daramola, 2013).

Table 7: Profitability Ratio analysis of producing Oreochromis niloticus with diets containing watermelon seedmeal

 

DT1

DT2

DT3

DT4

DT5

Expense Structure Ratio

0.22c

0.22c

0.23b

0.23b

0.24a

Benefit Cost Ratio

1.94±0.03a

1.87±0.15b

1.77±0.02c

1.65±0.02d

1.60±0.00e

Gross Ratio

0.51±0.01e

0.53±0.01d

0.56±0.01c

0.61±0.01b

0.63±0.00a

Return on Investment

0.94±0.03a

0.87±0.15b

0.77±0.02c

0.65±0.02d

0.60±0.00e

Rate of Return

0.56±0.01a

0.56±0.01ab

0.55±0.01b

0.53±0.1c

0.52±0.01c

The benefit cost ratio value of producing O. niloticus with diets containing DT1 was the highest while fish produced by dietary treatment DT5 had the lowest benefit cost ratio value. Significant variation (p<0.05) existed in the benefit cost ratio value of O. niloticus exposed to different dietary treatments. The benefit cost ratio values of producing O. niloticus in all the dietary treatment groups were above 1. The average benefit cost ratio value of producing O. niloticus across the different dietary treatment groups was 1.76 indicating benefit cost ratio value of 1.76 the profitability of producing tilapia with diets containing watermelon seedmeal. According to Adebayo and Daramola (2013) means that every N100 invested in tilapia production enterprise using watermelon seedmeal will yield N176.

A reverse trends of results to what was reported above was recorded for gross ratio of producing O. niloticus with diets containing watermelon seedmeal; fish produced by the dietary treatment DT5 had the highest gross ratio value which is significantly (p<0.05) higher than the gross ratio values of other dietary groups. Fish production on dietary treatment DT1 had the lowest gross ratio value. The average gross ratio value of producing O. niloticus across the different dietary treatment groups was 0.57 indicating that for every N100 returns to the tilapia production entrerprise using watermelon seedmeal, N57 is being spent. A value lower than what was reported in this study was reported for catfish production by Adebayo and Daramola (2013).

The return on investment (ROI) value of fish produced by dietary treatment DT1 was th e highest. The lowest value of return on investment (ROI) was recorded in fish produced by DT5. There existed significant reduction variations (p<0.05) in the ROI value with increasing levels of watermelon seedmeal. The average ROI value on tilapia production across the different dietary groups was 0.77 which implies that for N100 invested in tilapia culture using watermelon seedmeal, a profit yield of N77 would be obtained. Boateng et al , 2014 reported a profit yield of 0.91 for all male tilapia farming in Ghana.

The rate of return (ROR) value on capital invested on fish produced by dietary treatment DT1 was the highest while fish produced using dietary treatment DT5 had the lowest rate of return value on capital invested. There existed significant variations (p<0.05) in the ROR value of fish produced by the different dietary treatments. However, there was no significant difference (p>0.05) in the ROR value of fish produced by dietary treatments DT1 and DT2. Similarly no significant difference (p>0.05) in the ROR value of fish produced by dietary treatments DT4 and DT5. The average ROR value of tilapia production across the different dietary treatment groups was 0.55 which implies that for every N100 invested in tilapia production using watermelon seedmeal N55 is gained. Adebayo and Daramola (2013) reported ROR value of 0.62 for catfish production.


To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Request Removal

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal:


More from UK Essays

We can help with your essay
Find out more