International Journal of Aquaculture, 2026, Vol.16, No.2, 74-89 http://www.aquapublisher.com/index.php/ija 83 Feeding recovery was not observed in Citrus limon treatments and was therefore excluded from statistical analysis. This exclusion limits comparability across all treatments and should be considered when interpreting the results. Overall, recovery performance was most favourable in Citrus sinensis and least favourable in Citrus limon, indicating variation in post exposure physiological stress responses. 3.9 Comparative cost analysis of anesthetic agents A comparative cost assessment of citrus extracts and conventional anesthetic agents is presented (Table 9). Cost estimates were derived from prevailing local market prices in southern Nigeria. This analysis is descriptive and was not subjected to statistical testing. The values are intended to provide indicative comparisons rather than definitive economic conclusions, as costs may vary depending on location and market conditions. Table 9 Comparative cost analysis of citrus leaf extracts and synthetic anesthetics Anesthetic source Preparation/market cost (₦ per liter equivalent) Effective concentration (mg L⁻¹ ) Estimated cost per 1 000 L tank (₦) Sweet orange 1 834 3000 5501 Sour orange 1 757 3000 5272 Lemon 1 910 3000 5730 Clove oil 27504 40 27504 MS222 38200 100 38200 Estimated preparation or market costs of citrus leaf extracts and commonly used synthetic anesthetics, including clove oil and MS-222, expressed per litre equivalent and extrapolated to the cost of treating a 1,000 L tank at effective working concentrations. The table highlights relative economic efficiency of plant-based anesthetics under practical aquaculture conditions. It should be noted that cost estimates presented in this study are context-specific and reflect prevailing local market conditions in southern Nigeria at the time of the experiment. As such, the values are intended to support comparative evaluation among anesthetic options rather than to provide absolute or universally applicable economic benchmarks. Table 10 Post-exposure recovery behavior Treatment Species Swimming Recovery (min) Feeding Recovery (min) Sweet Orange O. niloticus 5.2±0.27ᵃ 18.0 ± 0.82ᵃ Sweet Orange C. gariepinus 6.1±0.33ᵃ 20.3 ± 0.91ᵃ Sour Orange O. niloticus 10.5 ± 0.41ᵇ 35.2 ± 1.18ᵇ Sour Orange C. gariepinus 11.8 ± 0.46ᵇ 37.0 ± 1.24ᵇ Lemon O. niloticus 14.0 ± 0.58ᶜ Not recovered Lemon C. gariepinus 15.2 ± 0.63ᶜ Not recovered Values are mean ± SE (n = 3). Different superscripts indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 (ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD). Feeding recovery was not observed in lemon-treated groups and was excluded from statistical comparison. Welfare recovery was fastest in C. sinensis and poorest in C. limon, indicating differential physiological stress responses. The results indicate that aqueous citrus leaf extracts exhibit differing anaesthetic profiles in freshwater fish species. Citrus sinensis appears to offer a more favourable balance between efficacy and safety, while Citrus aurantium andCitrus limon demonstrate greater potency but reduced safety margins. It is important to emphasise that these findings are based on controlled experimental conditions with limited replication. Therefore, the observed patterns should be interpreted as preliminary evidence, and further studies
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODYzNA==