Effects of feed restriction on compensatory growth performance of Indian major carps in a carp-prawn polyculture system: a response to growth depression

Abstract

Effects of feed restriction on compensatory growth (CG) performance of Indian major carps, sediment loading and water productivity in a carp-prawn grow-out production system were examined. The overall growth and crop performance were in the similar line in both T 1 (regular feeding, 2 times a day) and T 2 (4-week feeding followed by 2-week no feed). However, between T 1 and T 3 (8-week feeding followed by 2-week no feed), there was a significant (P < 0.05) variation in the overall growth and crop performance. This was probably due to the longer refeeding periods after cyclic food deprivation that successfully triggered compensatory growth response in T 3 (CG Index: 98-104%). Treatment-wise sediment load ranged between 59.2 and 69.6 m 3 t À1 biomass. Higher the apparent feed conversion ratios, higher was the sedimentation rate. Higher the feed input, higher were the water exchange requirement, total water use and consumptive water use index. Cyclic food deprivation and refeeding also helped in maintaining water quality due to the restricted feed input (10.5% in T 2 and 2.0% in T 3 ), thus minimizes the input cost and improves production efficiency. Keeping the growth and yield performance, water productivity and economic efficiency in view, T 3 is considered the best feed management protocol followed by T 2 and T 1 .

Impact of Feeding Schedule on the Growth Performances of Tilapia, Common Carp, and Rice Yield in an Integrated Rice-Fish Farming System

“…Straw yield (t ha −1 ) The weight of the sun-dried straw was acquired from each unit plot that included straw. This yielded straw production per plot and was finally converted into t ha −1 [26].…”

Effect of restricted feeding and refeeding on compensatory growth, nutrient utilization and gain, production performance and whole body composition of carp cultured in earthen pond

“…; 1.10–1.50 in O. niloticus , Limbu & Jumanne ; 1.95–1.96 in L. rohita , Yengkokpam et al . ; 2.19 in carp and prawn mixed culture, Mohanty ). Our AFCR value of 1.67 is well within the earlier reported values on FCR when the fish subjected to different feed restriction and refeeding schedules had achieved the full growth compensation.…”

Desempeño productivo y fisiológico de juveniles de Piaractus brachypomus sometidos a restricción de alimento

“…Lo anterior se explica con la teoría expuesta en la revisión de Ali et al, (2003), que mencionan que los peces sometidos a restricción de alimento, exhiben una trayectoria de crecimiento superior a la de los peces alimentados permanentemente, evento comprobado en el presente ensayo para Piaractus brachypomus. Adicionalmente también se reporta que, aunque el crecimiento compensatorio sea parcial, demuestra la capacidad de los peces para adaptarse a la restricción de alimento, siempre y cuando después tengan acceso al mismo (Xiao et al, 2013;Malpica et al, 2014;Mohanty, 2015;Yang et al, 2015;El Sayed et al, 2016). No obstante lo anterior, los índices hepato y víscero somáticos sí presentaron diferencias significativas al concluir el ensayo, siendo superiores en T1, situación explicada por el comportamiento de triglicéridos y colesterol que se presentó al inicio de la discusión.…”