Paper Titles

Climate Change: Causes, Effects and the Need for Science Education for Sustainable Development
p.1

Buffering Assessment of Pawpaw (Carica papaya) Leaves and Stem for Fish Production in Port Harcourt, Nigeria
p.10

Constraints in the Application of Biotechnology to Cassava Production in Nigeria
p.26

Gender Differential in the Incidence of Diabetes Mellitus among the Patients in Udi Local Government Area of Enugu State, Nigeria
p.34

Water Quality Challenges and Impact
p.44

Occurrences of Elaterate Pollen from the Lower Cretaceous of Ghana: Implications for Biostratigraphy and Palaeoclimatology
p.54

HomeInternational Letters of Natural SciencesInternational Letters of Natural Sciences Vol. 4Buffering Assessment of Pawpaw (Carica papaya)...

Buffering Assessment of Pawpaw (Carica papaya) Leaves and Stem for Fish Production in Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Article Preview

Abstract:

Organic materials are alternatives to chemicals for safe and healthy fish production. This study aimed at comparing the buffer efficiency of pawpaw leaves and stem with calcium carbonate on acidic borehole water at different dosages for aquaculture. Forty-eight, 25-litres shaded plastic tanks of three replicates per treatment were used. The tanks were 20 litres filled with experimental water (pH 4.7). There were sixteen treatment (T) levels (T0 to T16). T1 to T15 were classified into three groups of three dosage levels (G) (2.4g [G1], 6g [G2] and 12g [G3]) per pawpaw leaves and stem [dried leaves (DL), fresh leaves (FL), dried stem (DS) and fresh stem (FS)] and calcium carbonate (CA). pH and temperature were monitored once daily while dissolved oxygen, alkalinity and calcium were measured weekly for thirty-one (31) days using standard method. Data were analyzed for analysis of variance, Duncan Multiple Range and descriptive statistics. At the end of the study period, the minimum (4.7) and maximum (7.30) pH were recorded in T0 and T11 respectively. Water pH progressively increased from Day 1 to Day 31 in all the treatment levels. The order of buffer efficiency of pawpaw leaves and stem at the end of the experiment in all the treatment groups was FS<DS<FL<DL. pH values ranged between 6.41 ±0.01 (T4) and 7.03 ±0.02 (T11) on Day 28 and were within the acceptable range of 6.5-9.0. This study therefore suggests the use of DL, FL, DS and FS for fish production. It is free of cost and safe for fish production and human consumption.

By email View Pdf

Info:

Periodical:

International Letters of Natural Sciences (Volume 4)

Pages:

10-25

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56431/p-6bc41v

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

November 2013

Authors:

O.A. Davies, E. Jaja

Keywords:

Biotechnology, Efficiency, Organic Buffer, Pawpaw Plant, pH

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Permissions:

Creative Commons CC BY 4.0

Share:

Citation:

[1] Bhat G. P., Surolia N., American Journal of Tropica Medicine and Hygiene 65(4) (2001) 304-308.

[2] Clean Water Team [CWT) (2004). pH fact sheet, FS-3.1.4.0 (pH). In: The Clean Water Team Guidance Compendium for Watershed Monitoring and Assessment, Version 2.0. Division of Water Quality, California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Sacramento, CA.

[3] Davies R. M., U. S. Mohammed, Singapore Journal of Scientific Research 1(3) (2011) 253-263.

[4] Doughari J. H., Elmahmood A. M., Manzara S. (2007). Studies on the antibacterial activity of root extracts of Carica papaya L. African Journal of Microbiology Research pp.037-041. Available online http://www.academicjournals.org/ajmr.

[5] FishDoc. (2010). Fish health and pH. Retrieved from http://www.fishdoc.co.uk/water/pH.html on 26th June, 2010.

[6] Garba S., Okeniyi S. O., Journal of Microbiology and Antimicrobials 4(3) (2012) 60-63.

[7] International Joint Commission (IJC) (1977). New and revised specific water quality objectives. Vol 11. Great Lakes Water Quality Board Report.

[8] Munguti J. M., Liti D. M., Waidbacher H., Straif. M., Zollitsch W., Journal of Agricultural Research 57(3) (2006) 131-141.

[9] Nwofia G. E., Ojimelukwe P., Eji C., International Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants 2(1) (2012) 200-206.

[10] Okpaku A. T. (2011). Status of catfish farming in selected Local Government Areas in Rivers State, Nigeria: prospects and problems. B.Sc. Project (Unpublished). Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, Nigeria. 52 pp.

DOI: 10.18535/jmscr/v9i2.21

[11] Oloyede O. I., Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 4(6) (2005) 379-381.

[12] Otsuki N., Dang N. H., Kumagai E., Kondo A., Iwata S., Monmoto C., J. Ethnopharmacol 127 (2010) 760-767.

[13] SAS (2003). Statistical Analysis System. User's Guide SAS/STA-t Version. 8th Edn., SAS, Institute, Inc. Cary, N. C., US.

[14] Srikanth G. S., Manohar B., Kavitha C. N. and Bhanoji R. M. E., Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences 1(2) (2010) 59-65.

[15] United Nations (1992). The Convention on Biological Diversity.

[16] Viveen W. J. A R., C. J. J. Richter, P. G. W. J. van Oordt, J. A. L. Janseen, E. A. Huisman (1986). Practical Manual for the Culture of African Catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Directorate General for International Technical Corporation, The Hague, The Netherlands, Pages: 107.

[17] Water Research Commission (2010). A manual for rural Freshwater Aquaculture. Available online www.dbsa.org/.....TT%20463%20=P.

[18] Wurts W. A., Durborow R. M. (1992). Interactions of pH, carbon dioxide, alkalinity And hardness in fish ponds. Southern Regional Aquaculture Centre, Publication No.454. ( Received 04 October 2013; accepted 30 October 2013 )