SHORT BIOGRAPHY OF DR ENYIDI U.D.
Dr Uche Enyidi is a professional Aquatic Scientist with a Doctor of Philosophy degree (PhD) in Aquatic Sciences (Fisheries and Aquaculture option) obtained from University of Jyvaskyla Finland (2012). He also has a Masters of Science degree (MSc) in Fisheries and Aquaculture obtained from University of Nigeria Nsukka (1992). His first degree was Bachelors of Science (BSc) in Zoology obtained from University of Port Harcourt Nigeria (1988). His PhD thesis in University of Jyvaskyla Finland was on the production of feeds for African catfish Clarias gariepinus using plant proteins. The thesis involved use of stable isotopes of 13C and 15N in analysis of feed ingredients utilization, assimilation and their individual separate biomass contributions to the whole fish biomass. He was the first researcher to separate biomass contribution of over four ingredients to fish using Stable isotope analysis in R. Previous researchers were able to achieve biomass contribution to recipient from only two food sources. He discovered that bambaranut popularly known as “Okpa” in Nigeria is a C3 plant (like soybeans) as against indigenous plant (C4) plant it was thought to be. This he did through analysis of the δ13C and δ15N stable isotope profile of the crop. While in Jyvaskyla he was teaching tropical Aquaculture and fish physiology to postgraduate students of department of Biological Sciences (2007-2012) and Department of Development and International Relations (DIC) University of Jyvaskyla (2010-2012). He took African catfish Clarias gariepinus to Finland by his research multiplied the fish in thousands. He has trainings in Fish Physiology at University of Copenhagen Denmark, and attended trainings in industrial fish feed production in Belgium. He has also attended European Aquaculture conferences in Czech Republic and featured in several research workshops all over Finland. Presently Dr U.D Enyidi is a part time Senior lecturer at the department of Biotechnology Godfrey Okoye University Enugu. Dr U.D. Enyidi lectures in the department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Michael Okpara University of Agriculture Umudike Umuahia Abia State Nigeria. He is currently the Deputy Dean College of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture Umudike Umuahia. He has series of publications and his research interest is on gut health, the supplementation of fish meal with plant protein and use stable isotopes of 13C and 15N in analysis of nutrient utilization and biomass contributions to fish.His latest research was the production of vitamin A fish using genetically modified provitamin A cassava UMUCASS38 (IITA-TMS-IBAO114121).
A major problem with this research is the design. The authors varied three protein items therefore introducing three variable sources of effect.Meanwhile the fish meal is varied in % inclusion together with cricket meal. The report was based only on the variation of cricket and fish meal variation or substitution.The substitution of fishmeal and cricket meal with soybean meal was kept silent but it is very important. Feed 1 had58.6% Soybean meal, F2 had 9.8% soybean meal , F3 had 19.2 soybean meal , F4 had 33.3 % Soybean meal and F5 had 96.2% Soybean meal. This variation is pivotal to the performances (growth and nutritional) of the catfish. So how can they claim the growth results were based on cricket and fishmeal variation alone? Soybean has been known t have profound effects on the growth of African catfish. Cricket had very high lipid content 10.2 g/100g while rest of ingredients had 2 approximately, how come the diets with 300% cricket had same lipid content with other diets? This did not also reflect in the body composition of the fish.These are major caveats in this research for any experienced researcher. I think the result can not be supported by the design.Its possible the growth differences were not due to the cricket and fish meal variations.
You have to include cost benefit and prove that cricket is costlier.You need to explain the effects of various inclusions of the soybean in the diets.Why did you vary soybean alongside fish meal and cricket meal?In your nutritional profile of ingredients you noted that CM had 10g/100g of lipids and other 2g/100 approx.How come in a diet containing 300% of CM the lipid content did not vary with others? In pg 10 lines 41-54 you stated that feed Crude protein was tolerable and went on to say it was insufficient,please clarify,its confusing what you mean. In pg 11 line 25 you stated that body composition was feed based but your CM with 10g/100g lipids did not reflect in the fish why? Your fish had high FCR and poor SGR do you think this is ok? Could chitin have accounted for high FCR? Chitin does not easily digest in fish. Please recast pg 11 line 34-45. I dont know relationship between water hyacinth and CM.