ABSTRACT The food and feeding habit of mormyrus rume (cuvier and vallencrennes) was studied in River Rinia, Sokoto, Nigeria. Fish simples were analysed using frequency of occurrence method. The result of the study showed that the fish is an omnivore and has selective preference for diets of other fishes, and leaf parts. The fish is in good condition, with condition factor ranging farm 0.09 to 0.97, mean 0.60 ± 0.21 SD. CHAPTER ONE 1.0 INTRODUCTION All fish vital function of feeding digestion assimilation growth responses to stimuli and production are dependent on water. Fish is one of the most diverse grbups of animals knowato man with more then twenty thousand (20,000) species in existence (lager et al, 1977). There are more species than all the other vertebrates combined. These species comprise about twenty thousand (20,000) species of teloest or the bony fishes and about five hundred (500) species of elasmobranches or cartilaginous fishes (Eyo 20 01V The bony fishes are of two (2) types, the pelagic and damersals (Eyo,2001) the former are the shoals moving fatty fishes such as sardines, mackerel and herring which more in shoal at the surface water" bodies. The demersais are the bottom dwellers 'with' less than 5% fat in the tissues, such as cod. haddock and cracker (Eyo,2001). A typical fish is a cold blooded, has a streamlined body that allows it to rapidly extracts oxygen from the water using gills or an accessory breathing organ to enable it to breath atmospheres oxygen that is has two set of paired fish an anal fin, usually one or two (rarely three) dorsal fins, and a tail fin has jaws, has skin that is usually covered with scales, and lays eggs that are fertilized internally or externally (Helfman et al, 1997). Fish is one of the most important animal protein ;food available in the tropics. The less developed countries capture about 50% of the world's heaviest and a lane proportion of that catch is consumed internally (FA0.1985) In many Asian countries over 50% of the animal protein, intake comes from fish while in Africa the proportion is about 17.55% (William et al, 1998). Fish is one of the palatable foods which contain a large amount of protein fats, and vitamins (Eyo.2001) Man has been'fund to digest completely as much as 93-2% of the protein content and can make the use of 93.7% of the fatly content of fishes (Lagler et at Bardarc miller and passion, 1977). 1.1 JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY The study of food and feeding habit is important partly because it forms the basis for the development of successful culture and picture fisheries(blacks, 1997, Ayila, 1998; Ugwumba, 1998). The result of this research will help the fish farmers in formulating artificial-diets for supplementation in case where intensive or semi intensive cu'turing of fish is desired. CHAPTER TWO 2.1 TAXONOMY AND NATURAL HISTORY OF MORMYRUS Mormyrus rume (Curier and Valenciannes) belong to the family mormyridae and genus mormyrus. Mormyridae is well represents in local water with twenty six (26) different species belonging to six (6) genera in this region (Reed et al 1967). All members of the genus mormyrus have the anal fin less than half the length of the dorsal which constitute the three species found in this region . (Holden and Reed, 1967). They are curios looking fish healthy variable in the shape of the head and the extent of the vertical fins. The .-body, which has small cycloid scales to covered by a thin layer of firm gelatinous slime (Reed et al,1967). Their commoj characteristics are upward' pointing pectoral fin, narrow opening, Mormyrus rume have a trunk like snout and; a small terminal mouth. They .are usually a uniform, grayish yellow color and ;the, back and sides, and lighter ventrally. This specie grows to about a meter in length and a weight of more than 6kg( Reed et al, 1967). Reed et al(1967) reported large specimen are capable of giving quite noticeable shocks.. Generally mormyrus are typical bottom dwellers. Mormyrus rume is classified as follows: Kingdom Ammalia Phylum Sub phylum Class Sub class Family Genus Specie chordate vertebrata sarcopterygii dipnoi mormyridae mormyrus rume 2.2 FOOD AND FEEDING HABIT Food is one of the several biological factors in the environment of fishes, its abundance and varieties are determinants of both the species compositions and magnitude offish population. It is expected that a group as diversified as the fishes has become adapted to wide variety of food, some feed on plants exclusively, they are herbivores, others feed on only animals they are carnivores, and still some feed on both plants and animals, they are omnivores (Lagler et al, 1977). A wide range of kinds and sizes of animals is important in food chain of fishes among the earliest animal food to be consumed by fishes are zooplanktons which constitute many different kinds of protozoan, micro crustaceans and other microscopic invertebrates and the eggs and larvae of many animals including those of fishes themselves, of outstanding important as fish food among the larger invertebrates are the annelids, worms, snails, mussels, and insects (Lagleret al.1977). Therefore, for any organism exist or continue life, food is essential, so also with fish, food is necessary for certain processes to continue properly .like growth, development and reproduction. Fish growth in general, is directly related to the amount food available in the environment, feeding habit of fishes is the search for and ingestion of food ( Lagler et al, 1977) Most fishes; feed at a high rate until their stomach are full c nearly full (Forman et al,1961). Rate of eating remains at a low level as long as the stomach is full and hunger is presumed to zero (Forman et al,1961). Volume of stomach content is directly related to ingestion, digestion-and food progression which is strongly influenced by water temperature (lkomi,1996). When stomach fullness decreases, hunger increases and probability 'of eating rises (lkomi,1996). Allen,(1941) and Bannister.(1976) reported that different fish specie habitually feed on different food items at different stages of their lifecycle, this indicate that the young fish tent to feed more on aquatic invertebrates while the adults mostly on other smaller fish species. Moriarty and Moriarty (1973) reported that the accuracy of food consumption estimated may be influenced by a number of variables which include variation in the rate at which individual fish begin and stop feeding, the rate at which they feed, the maximum amount accumulated in the stomach and the rate at which food moves from stomach to the intestine. Mann and Orr, (1969) reported that the relative food availability of food item in the stomach may not reflect the proportion in which they are injected because at different rate of these foods progression for various items may lead to selective accumulation of this food item or parts which are ingested more slowly. Fagade (1971;) reported that an understanding constituent of the natural food will give room to formulating fish artificial diet for supplementation in case where intensive and semi intensive culturing offish is desired. Availability of food in desirable quantity and quality is essential for proper growth and reproduction of fish(Huet,1970: Fagade,1971). According to Bardarch et al,(1972) the growth of fish of directly related to the amount of food available within the environment. According to Huet, (1970) the natural food of fishes in the wild include worms, insect larvae and even fishes found within the locality, and these food items are typical of carnivores fishes. Other food item include phytoplanktons, detritus, small plants like true weeds and grasses that can be found in that environment. These are mainly for herbivores fishes. Lagler et al (1977) reported that food and feeding of fish is the feeding behavior of that fish which include the searching for the focx and all processes of ingestion.' Therefore, a strong correlation exist between the kind of structural modification related to feeding habit and food eating in this wise. Lagler et al, (1977) reported that, the diversity in feeding habit that fishes exhibit is the result of evolution leading structural adaptation for getting food from the equally great diversity of situation that have evolved from the environment. On this basis, fishes can be classified according to their feeding habit as predators, grazers, food strainers, food suckers, parasites. 2.2.1 PREDATOR Lagler et al,(1977) refer to predator fishes as larger fishes that feed on microscopic animals or smaller ones known as prey According to this author, the mophological adaptation of predators includes well developed grasping and holding teeth as in sharks. In predatory fish, there is well defined stomach with strong acid secretions, and the intestine is shorter than that of herbivores of comparable size. Many predators such as the voradious1 blue fish actively hunt their prey, where as others, like groupers lie and wait until an animal passes and then dart out to grasp it. Some predatory hunt by sites whereas others rely largely on smell, taste and touch and probably also on their lateral line sense organ to locate and catch their prey (Lagler et al 1977). 2.2.2 STRAINERS Lagler et al,(1977) reported that straining is a generalized type of feeding, in as much as food objects are selected by size and not by kind. This author further noted that plankton filtration and swallowing of the "pea-soup-like" concentrate illustrate this feeding act as. In many, herring like (clupeid), fishes including the gizzard shads. A principle adaptation of the strainers is the development of numerous, close set arid elongated gill rakers (Lagler et al 1977) 2.2.3 GRAZERS According to Lagler et al(1977) and Fagade (1971), grazing in fishes involves the actual taking of food by biting often by individual small ones. Sometimes organisms are taken singly or at other times in small group in a rather continual type of browsing much like cow or sheep in a pasture land Grazing characterizes many fish that feed on plankton or in bottom organisms. A very special kind.of grazing is that in which fish browse on parts of one another (Lagier et al,1977). 2.2.4 PARASITES Lagler et al(1977) stated that "parasitism" is perhaps the mo unusual and highly evolved feeding habit among animals. In the fish world an outstanding examples of these practice is represented by parasitic lamprey and hagfish that sucks body fluids from thetiost fish often rasping a hole in the side of the body. 2.2.5 SUCKERS .Suckers, according to Lagler et al(1977) are those that suck in food containing materials with their mouth, and this often practice by bottom feeding fishes such as .sturgeons. Fishes that suck in mud to extract the organism in it may not get a good mouthful of food with each ingestion. In some, the food items are separated from the sediments before being swallowed but in others remain cf flocculent bottom deposit can be found in the digestive tract together with high concentration of bottom organisms(Lagler et al.1977). 2.2.6 STRUCTURAL FEEDING ADAPTATION According to Lagler et al,(1977) the diversity in feeding habit that fishes exhibit is the result Devolution leading to structural adaptation for getting food from the equally great diversity of situation that have evolved in the environment. According to this author the structural adaptations include the presence of lips, modification in the shape of the mouth, presence of teeth, the gill rackers and t digestive tube. ( 2.2.7 THE TEETH Lagler et al(1977) reported that outstanding among :he obvious adaptations for feeding in fishes are the teeth. They have thought to have arisen from scales covering the lips, as represented in living sharks, where the placoid scales of the skin visibly guide into the teeth or jaw in the bonny fishes, teeth are of three kinds based on whether they are. found. Jaw, mouth and pharyngeal (Lagler et al,1977). Jaw teeth are variously those on the maxillary and pre maxillary bones above ara on the dentane below Based on their form, some major kinds of jaw teeth are the following cardiform. villiform, canine, incisors and molariform (Lagler et al,1977) cardiform are numerous, short, fine and pointed (found in mostly American cat fishes). Villiforms teeth is more less elongated than cardiform ones (as in needle fishes, and lion fishes); Canine are due tooth like, often even quit fang like, they are -elongated and sub conical, straight and curved and adopted for /piercing and holding.Incisores are sharply edged cutting teeth. Molariform teeth are for crushing and grinding and hence have flattened, often broadly occlusal surfaces, they are generally characteristics of bottom dwelling (Lagler et al,1977). 2.2.8 LIPS According to Lagler et al, (1977) a significant advanced in vertebrates evolution was the appearance of true jaw to boarder the mouth opening. Most generally the jaw equipped mouth has a biting function and fishes, that swallow large morsels of food usually have unmodified relatively thin lips Suctional feeders have an inferior mouth and fleshy modification of lips. Notable among this are the surgeons of north temperate zone and the suckers of north America and Asia. Many suctorial feeders also have well developed barbells more less bordering the mouth as in Asiatic hill stream loaches. The barbells have many sensory end organs and help to locate food grubbed from soft bottom material. (Lagler et al, 1977). 2.2.9 THE GILL RAKERS According to Lagler et al, (1977) besides protecting the tender gill filaments from abrasion by ingested materials that are coarse in texture, gill rakers are also specialized in'relation to food and feeding habit. They are very stubby and unadorned in omnivores such as the green sunfish. 2.2.10 THE DIGESTIVE TUBE Lagler et al, (1977) reported that another adaptation that fishes have for feeding is the great dispensability of the esophagus Seldom does an individual choke to death because it can not swallow something that got into its mouth. Only occasionally is a predacious fish found in mortal distress because a prey fish lodged in its throat. In general, the esophagus is so distensible that it can accommodate anything thatgot into its mouth. (Lagler et al, 1977). 2.2.11 THE SHAPE OF THE MOUTH Lagler et at (1977) reported that among the grazers and subtorial feeders there exist net only specially developed lips but also adaptation of other mouth parts The trumpet fishes, the cornet fishes as well as many butterfly fishes, cora! reefs, have mouth that resemble elongated beak This adaptation is achieved by a protraction of the hyomandibular bone rather than by lengthening of the jaw bones themselves Some predators, such as the dories, certain wrasses and the European bream, can form temporary tubes in which to engulf their prey from closed range by forward extension of jaws enable by special articulation the premaxillaries and other skull bones (Lagler et al, 1977) 2.2.10 CONDITION FACTOR* According to calendar (1969), Weatherly (1972) and Hyslop (1980). Condition factor (k) of a fish is the numerical e-pression of the degree of well being, relative robustness, plumpness cr fatness of the fish. It is based on the hypothesis that the heavier fish of a given length are in better condition (Bagenal and Tesch, 1978). Condition factor can be greater or less than unity as each fish specie has its normal and abnormal range ot values (Weatherly (1972). Hyslop (1980) stated that the condition factor might be affected by changes in season in relation to sexual differences, nutritional condition, stage of gonads maturity and age Hyslop (1980) and Olatunde (1983) reported that the length and weight relationship and condition factor are generally affected by change in relation to nutritional condition of food availability. In addition to those consideration routinely required to obtain a representative sample of a fish population,:- three special considerations are required in collection of specimen for analysis of stomach content. Collection method should be chosen which minimized: 1- Regurgitation of food. 2- Feeding under abnormal condition 3- Digestion of after capture Any method collection that holds the fish for more than a few minutes after capture will allow digestion to continue result in a loss of information. Several workers, including Keast and Welsh (1968) and Elliott (1970) have found that diet feeding intensity can vary during the diurnal cycle. Thus, it is best to begin a study of food and feeding of a population with series of collection made at regular interval over be or more 24hr period. As soon as possible after capture the specimen should be fixed in an aqueous solution of formaldehyde is the concentration most commonly used. Fixation is allowed to continue until all tissues are rigid The specimen is then transferred to school for storage. 70% methanol, ethanol and isopropanol are all satisfactory preservatives and are considerably less noxious than maldehyde. In many cases it is convenient to fix and preserve only stomach content after the relevant data have been collected from rest of the specimen. The stomach or stomach content of each specimen should be stored separately pending examination. 2.2.11 ANALYSIS OF STOMACH CONTENTS Much of our understanding between fish population and its environment is achieved through the studies of the diet of fish based nalysis cf stomach content identified the fish obtain enough representative samples of fish population. Three should be considered here method of catch should minimized regurgitation digestion after capture Feeding under abnormal condition 3-Fish digestive tract can be extracted and placed in 4-10% formalin immediately after capture, the digestive tract is injected with formalin where whole fish is to be preserved, open the coeiom to add it to the formalin or inject formalin into the body cavity. Fish can be chilled fresh on ice, freezing them soon after. Specimen are thawed, Guts removed and gut content preserved in 70% ethanol. SELECTION OF SUITABLE METHOD OF ANALYSIS In selecting any for analysis, consideration should be given to the goals or objectives and nature of food to be analyzed. For instance comparing different group of diet of fish, access the energetic and nutritional significant of diet e.t.c. METHODS OF ANALYSIS Numerical; the number of individual of each food item is counted in each stomach, sum up to give total of each kind then calculated grand total of item and express the total for each item as percentage total food items. Gravimetric; weigh each food item, then sum up the total weight of items found in each stomach and express each food item as percentage of total food weighed Frequency of occurrence; stomach content examined, individual items sorted our and identified, number of stomach in which each food item occur is expressed as percentage total number of fish Point method; obtain by Hynes in 1950, allocate points to food item depending on the size or how frequent it appears in the stomach. CHAPTER THREE 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA. The study was carried out in river Rima Sokoto, Nigeria. River Rima is located along the main road leading to the university main campus from the first gate to the second gate near kwalkwalawa village and Dundaye village which are located north ward of Sokoto metropolis. The vegetation of the river consist of grasses and trees e.g Acacia spp which is the dominant vegetation. Agricultural activities also takes place around the River, like rice farming. The river consist of wet land, and during rainy season the river become flooded, direction of flow is from east to west. 3.2 COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF SAMPLES The samples should be collected in batches to the laboratory and examined in fresh condition, while those that could not be treated immediately should be preserved in a freezer until the next day. 3.3 LENGTH AND WEIGHT MEASUREMENT The length of the samples were measured using a ruler [in centimeter]. The measurement of the fish were taken by placing it on flat board. The parameters measured include the total length [TL]Head length [HL],gut length [GL], and girth The measurement were then recorded. The weight of the sample were obtained using electric top loading balance [Mettler and sorties balance]. Total weight [TW], Gutted weight [GW],stomach weight [SW] were all measured. 3.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Length-length [L-L] relationship, length- weight [L-W] relationship, weight-weight relationship[W-W] were computed using linear regression model. The regression correlation were carried out using SPSS computer software package. 3.5 CONDITION FACTOR The condition factor [K], was calculated using the equation of I Worthington and Ricardo(1930): K=Wx100/L3 Where W=weight of fish sample in grams L=length of a sample in (cm) Sample of the fish where also divided into different groups to relate K-values. CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FISH. The sixe distribution of 70 specimen of niormyrus rume (cuvien and Valenciennes) range from 8.80(TL)cm to 43.10(TL)cm, mean 23.28+ 7.96SD. The samples were divided into five different size groups of (0-l()cm)2 samples; (10-20cm)22 samples; (20-30cm)30 samples; (30-40cm)15 samples; (40-50cm)l samle (figure 1). There were 31 females (44.3%) and 39male(55.7%) among the samples. fig 1: distribution of samples according to different size range. 4.2 LENGTH AND WEIGHT MEASUREMENT 4.2.1 LENGTH MEASUREMENT The total length (TL) of the sample ranged from 8.80cm to 43.10cm. 23.28± 7.96SD, the lead length (HL) ranged from 1.5cm to 6.5cm, mean 3.1Q± 1.03SD. The hut length (GL) ranged from 0.40cm to 46.50cm, mean 22.17 ± 10.02SD. And the girth ranged from 1.0cm to 4.9cm, mean 2.28 ± 0.82SD. The focal length ranged from 1.5cm to 31.20cm, mean 19.40 ± 6.68SD. Standard length (SL) ranges from 7.80 to 30.40, mean 19.25 ± 6.35SD 4.2.2 WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS The total weight (TW) of the fish ranged from 4.80g to 337,4g, mean 97.26 ± 69.95 SD. The stomach weight range from O.lg, mean 5.30 ± 5.74 SD. The gutted weight (GW) range from 4.4g to 304.8, mean 83.62 ± 59.38SD. 4.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSES 4.3.1 TOTAL LENGTH- TOTAL WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP The total length ranged from 8.80cm to 43.10cm. mean 23.28 i 796 SD, and the total weight ranges from 4.80g to 337.4g, mean 97.26 ±. 69.95SD. The r-value was 0.7872, p= 0.001, df=69 4.3.2. TOTAL LENGTH-GUT LENGTH RELATIONSHIP The total length (TL) ranged torn 8.80cm to 43.10cm mi^th 23.28 ± •<? 7.96SD. The Gut length range from 0.4cm to 46.50, mean 22.17 ±"10.02 SD. The r-value was ] .00000, p=001 df = 69 4.3.3 TOTAL WEIGHT GUTTED WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP The total weight range from 4.80g to 337.4g, mean 97.26 ±69.95SD. the gutted weight ranges from 4.40g to 304.8g, mean 83. ±59.38 SD. The r-value was 0.79979, p = 0.00, df = 69 4.4 CONDITION FACTOR The condition factor of the fish ranges from 0.009 to 0.97, mean 0.60 ± 0.21 SD. (table 4.1). when the sample were divided into different size groups of sex to relate k-values to size offish, there is a slight variation in the mean condition factors of the samples. Table 1: categorization of stomach fullness based on differcni ' Stomach fuilness% No of samples percentage% 0 (empty) 31 44% 25 14 20 50 11 15.7 75 4 5.7 100(full) 10 14 Total 70 100 Analysis of the fullness of stomach that 64.0% had food contents while 44.0% were empty stomach (in table above). The % of stomach with food was highest in July and August and September and lowest in October. This period falls within the raining season. In the study area flooding occur toward the end of the raining season. Table 2: frequency of occurrence of food items in the whole sample size classes of mormyous Rume. Foot items Whole samples Size classes <10cm F % F % F % Plant material Phvloplankton 9 16.1 5 9.1 4 16.0 Leaf parts 10 17.9 7 12.7 3. 12.0 Plant tissues 6 10.7 3 5.5 3 12.0 Diatoms 7 12.5 4. 7.3 3 12.0 Desmids 5 8.9 2 3.6 3 12.0 Sorghum seeds 8 14.3 5 9.] 3 12.0 Rite grains 6 10.7 1 1.8 4 16.0 Animal Material Insects parts 8 14.3 4 7.3 4 16.0 (leg, wings) Insects larvae 4 7.1 2 3.6 1 8.0 Annelids 18 32.1 9 16.4 10 36.0 . Shells 12 21.4 7 12.7 4 16.0 Nematodes 3 5.6 1 1Q 1 .8 2 8.0 Protozoa 4 7.1 1 1.8 3 12.0 fish remain 34 50.7 17 30.9 18 64.0 (Bone, scales) Hemiptera 5 .4 2 1.6 1 4.0 'Crustacean 16 28.6 10 8.2 8 24.0 Diptera 4 7.1 1 1.8 3 12.0 Others 'unidentified items 14 25.0 9 16.4 5 20.0 Sand bottom 36 64.3 25 45.5 9 36.0 (Deposit and detritus) Note: number and % not equal to 56 and 100 respectively due to multi occurrence. F = frequencies of occurrence; % = percentage of occurrence 4.6 STOMACH CONTENT ANALYSIS (Table 4.4) contains the frequency of occurrence of the food items with respect to size class and whole sample. Annelida accounted for 16.4% of the food items of the samples less than 10cm and 36% 1. The samph >10cm which accounted for 7.3%. Analysis of the stomach content of the whole sample showed that the animal materials with largest percentage of occurrence were fish remains (60.7%), Annelids (32.1%), crustaceans (28.6%), and insect parts (14.3%). Phytoplankton accounted for 16% of the plant food materials in the samples of > 10cm, while in the sample of < 10cm it accounted for 9.1%. Also rice grains and plant tissues which accounted for 16% and 12% respectively 1. the bigger size (> 10cm) where higher than in the samples of less than 10cm which accounted for 1.8% and 55% respectively. The pwerdentage occurrence of plant materials in samples where leaf parts (17.9%), phytioplankton (16.1%), sorghum grians (14.3%), and diatoms (12.5%), unidentified items and sand/detritus occurs in 25.0% and 64.3% of the stomach respectively. CHAPTER FIVE 5.0 DISCUSSION CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1 DISCUSSION The variety of food substances were found in the stomach of M. rume indicating it is an omnivore feeding on animal materials such as annelids, fish remains, crustaceans, insect past and plant materials such as sorghum, grains and rice grains were also found, these may be washed from nearby farms close to the water body. The proportion (44%) of M. rume found with empty stomach in this study may be attributed mainly to post harvest digestion. Large percentages of empty stomach have been found in similar studies with some carnivorous fish (Balogun, 1987, 2000), but lower proportions were attained in tilapia guineensis and hyperopisus bebe occidentals which are omnivores (fagade 1978; Ipinjolu et al. 1996) and in a carnivore (ipinjolu et al, 1988). The result of the condition of this fish showed that the fish is in good condition with K-values ranging from 0.09 to 0.97 (mean 0.60 + 0.12 SD.) there is also a slight variation in the condition of the fish when the sample were divide into different size groups and sex. In fish, gut lengths are known to be 0.2-2.5, 0.6-8.0 to 15.0 times the y gut length in carnivores, omnivores, and herbivores, respectively (Smith, 1980). Therefore, the gut length of M. rume used in this study could be considered of medium size for an omnivore. However, a variety of food items in the gut of this fish. Which may influence the gut length (Smith, 1980). In this study M. rume fed more on grain seed and detrital matter. This may be attributed to the ability to crack and digest grain and seed (Reed et.al., 1967, Holden Reed, 1972). CHAPTER SIX 5.2 CONCLUSION In conclusion, it can therefore be concluded that the present study showed that \I. ntmc is an omnivore, feeding on numerous and disease animal and plant material. The fish eat a Variety of food items ranging from aquatic and terrestrial substance that are available. 5.3 RECOMMENDATION The present study was carried out in River Rima, Sokoto, Nigeria and was carried out within the range of four months (July October) which fell within the rainy season, examining a few number of samples (70) sample may be due to time or financial constraints. Therefore, the need for conducting more research on this aspect of food and feeding in other months of the year to cover the other months in order to obtain results for the dry season (November-June) so that a comprehensive knowledge on the food and feeding habits of this specie can be obtained. It will also be worthwhile to extend these study to order indigenous fish species so as provide the necessary base line scientific information. Table 3: Monthly analysis of the stomach of mormyrus rume Month No of stomach Examined No of Stomach with food items % No of empty % July 16 10 26.3 6 19.4 August 26 20 53.6 6 19.4 September 12 5 13.2 7 22.6 October 16 3 7.9 12 38.7 Total 70 38 100/4 25.% 31 100.1/4 20% Table 4: Mean monthly condition factor of M rume Month No of fish examined Means condition factor (k)value July 16 0.29 August 26 0.43 September 12 0.23 October 16 0.29 Total 70 0.60 REFERENCE: Blake, B.F. (1977). Food and feeding habit of momyrids fishes of take kainji, Nigeria with special references to seasonal variation and interspecific difference. J. fish Biology. \ 1:315-328. Banister, F.V.(1976). The length-weight relationship, condition factor, and gut contents of dolphin fish in the Mediterranean journal of fish biology, vol.9 (4):335-338. Bardarch,J.E.,R.H Blyther and W.O. Me claney (1972). Aquaculture; the farming and husbandry of fresh water and marine organisms. 3rd edition Jonh Wilet, New York. Calendar, K.D. (1969). Handbook of fresh water fisheries biology. Washington state university press, U.S.A, vol. 10:72. Eyo A.A. (2001). Fish processing technology in the tropics. National institute for fresh water fisheries research, new-bussa, Nigeria ppl. Fagade, S.O. (1971). The food and feeding habits of tilapia specie in lagos lagoon. J.fish biology, 3:151-156. Fagade, S.O., and C.I.D Oknityan. (1972). The biology of west African shadEthmalosa fimbriata (Bromdrch) in the lagos lagoon J.fish biology, 4:519-533. haplochromis nigripimts in Lake George V\ ilc\ and son's inc. 2.pp 25-32. Olatunde A.A.(1983) length-weight relationship and diets ofcluries lazera (curer and vallenciemesjin zaria. In processing of the 3rd annual conference of FISON. Pp. 183-192. Reed. W. T.Buchard, AJ. Hopson, J.Jennes, and I.yaro. (1967). Fish and fisheries of northern Nigeria. 1st edition. Ministry of agriculture, Northern Nigeria, published by Gaskiya a press zaria.p5. Smith. L.S. (19800). Digestion to ie\Qosl fishes in fish food technology. Aquaculture development and co-coordinating programme UNDP/FAO, Rome .pp3-19. Weatherly, A.H.(1972) Growth and ecology of juveniles of some culture fish species in Nigeria. NIMR Tech. paper, No.31:24. Needham, P.R, and J.G Needham (1962). A guide to the study of fresh water biology. 5th edition. Holden Day inc. 108p. Ipinjilu John J.K., S.A garba and G.G. bako (1988). Length-weight relationships, condition factor and stomach contents of Bagrus Bayad Macropeterus (Daget) la River Rima, Sokoto state, Nigeria. J. Basic and Applied science 2(2):25-29. F.A.O. (1965). World catch and trade of fisherv products in 1984. food and Agriculture organization. Info fish marketing digest, No. 25. Forman, H.R., A.S. Hazzard and A. 13. Bradford. (1961). The relation of feeding before stocking of catch ability of trout. Journal of wildlife management. Vol.24:391-397. Helfman, a, coltehe B and D. Facey (1997). The diversity of fishes Blackwell scientific publication. P3. Huet, M. (1970). Textbook offish culture; Breeding and cultivation of fish. 2nd edition. Fishing news books ltd, England, pp240-251. Hysolp, E.J. (1980) stomach content analysis review of methods of and their application. J. fish boil. 17(4):411-429. Lagler, K.F., J.E. Bardanch, R.R. Milter and D.R.M passion (1977) Ihthyology (2nd edition.). John watey and sons, London.pp 250-308. Man, R.H.K. and Orr, K.O. (1969). Preliminary studies of feeding relationship in a hard and soft water stream in southern England J.fish biology. Vol. 3:31-44. Moriaty, E.M and D.J.M.Moriarty (19 73). Quantitative estimate of the daily injection phytoplankton by tilapia nilotica and  3/N TL (cm) HL (cm) SL (cm) FL (cm) GW (cm) GL (cm) SW (cm) Gin h Sex Condt.Dactor Stomach fullness TW/g Food items identified 1 314 4.2 29.4 29.6 131.4 31.8 4.5 29 M 0.49 50 152.1 Fish remain, nematode, Sorghum, rice grains 2 30.4 3.7 26.5 26.9 126.2 30.9 12.6 2.3 F 0.53 75 150.6 Fish remains, insect larvae, Insect parts, unidentified items 3 31.0 4.0 27.4 27.8 156.6 33.0 11.9 2.1 M 0.61 50 180.9 Annelids, crustaceans, nematode, unidentified items 4 29.1 3.2 20.0 20.4 82.8 31.1 12.3 1.8 M 0.39 100 94.9 Annelids, hemisphere, Mollnsk remain, rice grains 5 30.0 3.2 25.4 25.8 85.7 32.0 16.0 2.0 M 0.59 100 158.7 Annelids, fish remain, Dermid, unidentified items 6 32.6 4.9 24.8 25.0 1742 31.9 9.4 3.1 F 0.60 100 207.3 Crustaceans, fish remain Plant tissue, unidentified items 7 33.0 4.4 27.9 28.0 157.5 35.2 27.1 2.5 M 0.50 25 180.6 Fish remain, diatom, leaf parts 8 43.1 4.9 30.0 30.4 304.8 46.5 16.2 2.6 M 0.42 50 337.4 Fish remain, mollnks remain, Rice grains, bottom deposits sand V 29.1 3.1 19.9 20.1 85.3 27.4 12.9 2.0 M 0.41 50 100.6 Fish remain, sand, 10 25.5 2.9 18.8 21.2 80.4 29.6 3.5 2.0 iM_ 0.61 - 100.6 - 11 26.0 3.0 20.1 20.2 92.1 30.2 4.2 2.0 M 0.57 - 100.6 - 12 24.4 3,1 22.1 22.7 88.2 31.9 ' 2.1 M 0.69 25 100.6 Insect larvae, phytoplankton, Bottom deposits 13 22. 3 ^ 19.8 20.1 101.2 26.1 4.3 1.8 M 0.92 - 102.1 - 14 25.4 2.6 20.1 20.5 90.4 27.3 3.5 2.1 F 0.77 - 126.4 - 15 26.1^ 2.9 21 2 21 x 102.4 17.4 3.5 2.0 F 0.71 - 126.4 - 16 24.0 2.6 22.0 22.5 110.2 26.1 5.1 1.9 M 0.8 - 110.0 _ 17 22.8 2.2 19.4 20.1 80.6 26.1 7.1 1.9 F 0.95 25 111.2 Crustaceans, mollnsk, remain, unidentified items 18 22.4 • 2.3 19.2 20.0 90.0 24.8 4.6 1.6 F 0.92 - 103.5 - 19 24.1 2.4 21.2 21.6 85.1 30.1 3.1 2.0 1? 1 0.74 - 104.1 - 20 21.8 2.0 18.2 19.8 80.8 24.5 11.1 1.7 M 0.95 50 98.2 Annelid, fish remain ,bottom deposits 21 25.1 2.8 20.1 20.5 81.4 23.6 9.5 2.1 F 0.67 25 105.6 Dipterial, insect parts, leaf parts 22 28.4 2.9 22.0 22.5 102.1 32.3 4.5 2.3 F 0.53 - 120.9 - 23 26.2 2.5 21.2 21.8 92.5 29.7 10.4 1.9 F 0.63 25 113.4 Annelid, fish remaining, bottom deposits 24 24.9 2.6 19.8 20.0 95.6 30.1 5.5 1.8 M 0.71 - 110.0 - 25 24.0 2.3 18.2 18.7 82.3 28.0 9.4 1.7 F 0.79 100 109.4 Crustacean, mollnsk remain, unidentified items, sand. 26 29.4 3.1 ^_9.8 20.0 90.1 31.9 9.6 2.8 M 0.39 25 100.4 Fish diatom,detritns 27 24.2 2.6 19.0 20.1 86.2 26.1 11.2 2.4 M 0.70 50 99.4 Crustacean ,hemisphere , sorghum grain, detritus 28 25.0 2.6 20.0 20.6 80.5 19.4 4.3 1.9 F 0.65 - 102.0 - 29 22.8 2.2 18.2 19.0 80.6 26.1 7.1 1.9 F 0.93 25 111.2 Crustaceans, mollnsk remain , unidentified item. (30 30.4 2.7 24.3 25.0 126.2 30.9 12.6 2.3 F 75 150.6 Fish remain, insect larvae , insect part, unidentified items n 31.5 4.0 25.2 25.9 114.9 32.1 18.9 2.4 M 0.45 50 143.9 Crustaceans, annelids ,mollnks remains, plant issue, bottom deposits 32 28.9 5.5 25.5 27.0 148.3 22.7 2.9 5.7 F 0.73 100 176.7 Insects parts, bottom deposit, annelids 33 27.8 5.2 25.5 25.0 119.9 24.3 3.9 M 0.60 100 129.0 Dipteral, fish remain, sorghum grains , bottom deposits, sand 34 22.1 4.2 98 20.0 54.7 15.7 0.9 2.8 M 0.36 - 58.28 - 35 34.2 5.7 "so^T1 31.2 187.2 27.5 3.4 4.3 M 0.46 100 227.2 Fish remain, protozoa ,plytoplankton 36 37.3 6.5 33.0 34.0 213.5 21.0 1.9 4.9 M 0.38 75 233.9 Crustaceans, fish remain ,deimid, unidentified items. 37 32.2 5.2 29.0 29.5 176.0 26.1 4.1 4.5 M 0.56 75 189.5 Crustaceans, organic detris sand 38 31.2 5.0 28.1 28.5 177.3 22.3 2.4 4.2 F 0.66 100 202.6 Annelids, protozoa ,rice grains 39 13.8 2.7 12.3 12.6 15.6 riab~ 0.5 2.0 F 0.53 25 17.06 Diatoms, leaf parts 40 18.5 3.9 16.5 17.0 37.8 13.2 0.8 2.. 5 F 0.63 25 40.23 Annelid, insect larvae ,phytoplankton 41 15.2 2.8 13.8 14.0 23.6 11.5 0.4 2.4 M 0.009 25 25.9 Bottom deposit, sand 42 l3.5 2.5 12.0 20.9 9.5 0.5 1.8 0.11 25 22.4 Bottom deposit, sand 43 125 2.6 11.3 1.5 42.9 14.5 1.8 1.8 F 25 19.8 Insect part, leaf parts 44 16.1 3.4 14.5 14.8 17.9 17.2 1.5 2.8 F 0.54 - 50.3 - 45 MAS 2.5 12.7 13.1 21.3 12.00 1.6 2.0 M 0.63 - 19.4 - 46 14.7 2.9 12.9 13.2 15.8 11.3 1.8 2.1 M 0.07 - 23.2 - 47 13.2 2.3 12.0 12.3 17.6 8.5 1.6 2.00 M 0.27 - 17.7 - 48 14.1 2.7 12.8 13.3 16.9 7.5 0.5 1.9 M 0.65 - JM_ - 49 11.3 2.00 10.0 10.1 11.3 8.0 0.2 1.90 F 0.88 50 12.8 Daitom, phytoplankton 50 10.3 1.7 9.0 9.2 9.2 7.5 0.6 1.6 F 0.97 50 10.6 Fish remain, diatom, Leaf parts, Unidentified items 10.1 1.7 8.5 8.9 7.3 7.0 0.2 1.5 F 0.78 25 8.1 Fish remain, mollnsk, remain plant tissue, sand 52 99 1.6 8.3 8.5 6.2 0.4 0.4 1.3 F 0.62 - 6.1 - 53 15.6 2.7 13.8 14.0 23.3 12.7 0.3 2.1 LM 0.63 - 25A - 54 15.8 2.7 T4.1 14.2 22.5 11.0 0.1 2.0 M 0.61 - 24.2 - 55 14.3 2.9 12.2 12.5 15.8 11.4 0.3 1.7 M 0.57 - 16.9 - 56 15.4 2.8 14.0 14.3 25.8 12.5 0.4 2.2 |M_ 0.76 - 28.1 - 57 6.31 2.8 14.5 15.0 45.4 11.5 1.5 2.9 M 0.23 - 53.5 - 58 2.8 12.3 12.5 15.9 12.5 0.1 1.7 M 0.64 17.1 59 14.0 2.5 12.5 12.7 ,7.8 0.3 M ^65 - 20.7 - 60 2.6 13.1 13.5 28.1 10.5 1.9 2.0 F 0.51 - 32.0 - 61 14.3 2.8 12.5 12.8 8.0 0.2 1.8 F 0.56 - 18.2 - 62 8.8 1.5 r7j~ 8.1 4.4 3.4 0.1 1.0 M 0.69 - 4.8 - 32.0 3.5 26.2 26.7 111.8 31.8 6.3 1.8 M 0.41 25 135.1 Crustacean, dipteral, fish remain, sorghum grins 54 26.0 2.5 20.0 1 20.3 99.4 33.1 4.2 1.8 0.67 - 118.0 - 55 23.8 2.4 19.8 20.1 90.1 33.1 4.2 26 F 108.5 - 56 31.0 2.9 2^.2 25.5 103.1 33.3 10.1 2.0 M 0.40 100 120.1 Annelids, hemisphere, mollnsk remain, rice grains 67 35.6 4.0 27.2 27.5 156.2 31.2 13.9 2.1 F 0.41 50 184.4 Fish remain, protozoa phytoplankton 68 h-35'1 3.4 ^212 27.7 161.5 30.4 [14.2 .?!_ F 0.48 - 205.9 - 69' 30.0 3.2 25.5 25.8 134.1 28.4 16.0 2.0 M 0.59 100 159.7 Annelids, fish remain, phytoplankton dermid unidentified items 70 24.9 2.3 20.2 2(i.5 100.2 27.8 12.8 1.8 M 0.79 50 121.6 Fish, dermid, leaf parts