No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

A feeding trial evaluated the influences of different cycles of starvation and refeeding protocols for 7 weeks on growth and feed intake in 14‐g gilthead sea bream, Sparus aurata. Following 7 weeks of alternated cycles, all the groups were fed to apparent satiation for a further 3 weeks. Three groups of fish were fasted for 2, 4 or 7 days (S2, S4 and S7, respectively) and then refed until their relative feed intake differed by less than 20% of fed controls until the end of the week 7, while a fourth group (S7/Rf14) experienced three cycles, each consisting of 1 week of food deprivation followed by 2 weeks of satiation feeding. Control (C) fish were fed to satiation throughout the trial. The fish were fed a sea bream diet (450 g kg−1 crude protein) according to the protocols, twice a day for 7 weeks. Growth performance and feed intake in continuously fed control group were significantly higher than those of the deprived groups (S2, S4, S7 and S7/Rf14) (P < 0.05). Weight gain highly correlated with total feed intake (R2 = 94), and feed efficiency was the highest in the control group than other deprived groups (P < 0.05). The juveniles of gilthead sea bream demonstrated only a partial compensation during the cycling period and even after being fed to satiation for another 3 weeks. The convergence of growth trajectories and subsequent hyperphagic responses of the groups fed according to protocols are discussed in terms of possible costs of compensatory growth.

Abstract.— The effect of restricted feeding on growth, feed efficiency, and body composition was studied in juveniles of gilthead sea bream, Sparus aurata. Juveniles (6.4 g) were stocked into 12 tanks at a density of 16 fish per tank. Four different feeding schedules were tested on triplicate groups of juvenile fish: (1) control fed for 48 d without deprivation, (2) starvation for 1 d and then refed for 2 d (S1), (3) 50% satiation for 2 d and then refed to apparent satiation for 2 d (R2), and (4) 50% satiation for 6 d and then refed to apparent satiation for another 6 d (R6). Results indicated that all fish subjected to cycled restricted feeding regimes were unable to achieve catching up with control group. The specific growth rate of fish in the control was significantly higher than those in S1, R2, and R6, which were not significantly different from each other. Protein efficiency and protein productive value were significantly higher in R2 compared to control, S1, and R6. Fish in R2 had lowest feed conversion ratio (1.12) compared to the control (1.17). Body protein composition in R6 was less than that of the control, S1, and R2, while moisture, lipid, and ash content were not significantly different compared to the control.