Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.4 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 41 issue 1 (march 2007) : 62 - 64

EFFICACY OF COPPER AS A MICRONUTRIENT FOR THE FINGERLINGS OF HETEROPNEUSTES FOSSILIS (BLOCH)

A.K. Gupta, C. Singh
1Department of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur - 313 001, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Gupta A.K., Singh C. (2024). EFFICACY OF COPPER AS A MICRONUTRIENT FOR THE FINGERLINGS OF HETEROPNEUSTES FOSSILIS (BLOCH). Indian Journal of Animal Research. 41(1): 62 - 64. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Dietary copper requirement for the fingerlings of Heteropneustes fossilis was evaluated using
isocaloric purified diet, supplemented with graded levels of copper {i.e. 0 (control), 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9
mg/kg}. Significant growth parameters, viz., weight gain, specific growth rate (SGR) and gross
conversion efficiency (GCE) were noted with lowest food conversion ratio (FCR) at a level of 3 mg
Cu/kg diet. Fingerlings fed with Cu-deficient diet showed sign of sluggishness and poor growth with low specific growth rate, gross conversion efficiency and high food conversion ratio. Fingerlings fed with Cu-supplemented diets were found to improve protein, fat and carbohydrate contents. Significant RBC count in fingerlings was recorded at 3 mg Cu/kg diet.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Baker, J.T.P. (1968). J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 26: 2785-2793.
    2. Cho, C. et al. (1976). J. Nutr., 106: 1547-1556.
    3. Collvin, L. (1984). Wat. Res., 18: 139-144.
    4. Collvin, L. (1985). J. Fish BioI., 27: 757-763.
    5. Crandall, C.A. and Goodnight, C.J. (1963). Trans. Am. Microscop. Soc., 82: 59-73.
    6. Gatlin, D.M. III and Wilson, R.P. (1984). Aquacult., 41: 31-36.
    7. Gatlin, D.M. III and Wilson, R.P. (1986). Aquacult., 54: 277-285.
    8. Julshamn, K. et al. (1988). Aquacult., 73: 143-155.
    9. Knox, D. et al. (1982). Aquacult., 27: 111-119.
    10. Knox, D. et al. (1984). Aquacult., 40: 199-207.
    11. Lett, P.F. et al. (1976). J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 33: 1335-1342.
    12. McKim, J.W. et al. (1970). J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 27: 1883-1889.
    13. Murai, T. et al. (1981). Aquacult., 22: 353-357.
    14. Ogino, C. and Yang, G-Y. (1978). Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish, 44: 1015-1018.
    15. Ogino, C. (1979). Lab. Fish Nutr. Tokyo, 11-18.
    16. Ogino, C. and Yang, G-Y. (1980). Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish, 46: 455-458.
    17. Passow, H. et al. (1961). Pharmacal. Rev., 13: 185-224.
    18. Snedecor, G.R.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1967). Statistical Methods, 6th edn., The Iowa State University Press, America, Iowa.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)