Feed intake, growth, feed utilization, body composition and waste output of juvenile hybrid bream at different feeding frequencies

Abstract

An eight‐week feeding trial was conducted to evaluate the feed intake, growth, feed utilization, body composition and waste output of juvenile hybrid bream at different feeding frequencies (0.5, 1, 2, 3 or 4 meals/day). Fish (initial body weight of 10.6 ± 0.8 g) were fed to satiation at each feeding. The test diet contained 336 g/kg crude protein and 79 g/kg crude lipid. The weight gain significantly increased with increase in feeding frequency from 0.5 to 3 meals/day (p < 0.05) and afterwards did not change with feeding frequency from 3 to 4 meals/day (p > 0.05). The feed intake increased with increase in feeding frequency (p < 0.05). Fish fed at 3 meals/day exhibited the lowest feed conversion ratio and waste output of nitrogen and phosphorus, however, the highest nitrogen retention efficiency (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the phosphorus retention efficiency, the body composition of crude protein, ash and phosphorus among all the feeding frequencies (p > 0.05). The body lipid content increased, whereas the content of moisture decreased, with the increase in feeding frequency (p < 0.05). The present study reveals that the optimum feeding frequency is 3 meals/day for hybrid bream.

Effects of different feeding regimes on juvenile black rockfish ( Sebastes schlegilii ) survival, growth, digestive enzyme activity, body composition and feeding costs

“…When fish are fed to apparent satiety, increased feeding frequencies improve total feed intake, so growth may be enhanced by increased feed rations as discussed above. This pattern has been observed in many species, including carnivorous Australian snapper ( Pagrus auratus ; Booth et al., 2008), hybrid bream ( Megalobrama terminalis Richardson ♀× Erythroculter ilishaeformis ♂), flounder ( Platichthys flesus luscus ; Kucuk et al., 2014) and gilthead sea bream ( Sparus aurata L.; Wu et al., 2019). These results suggest that the threshold of feed intake may be determined by the gastrointestinal evacuation rate of the fish, which is an important mechanism that regulates fish growth and feed utilization efficiency (Jobling, Jørgensen, Arnesen, & Ringø, 1993; Wu et al., 2019).…”

“…This pattern has been observed in many species, including carnivorous Australian snapper ( Pagrus auratus ; Booth et al., 2008), hybrid bream ( Megalobrama terminalis Richardson ♀× Erythroculter ilishaeformis ♂), flounder ( Platichthys flesus luscus ; Kucuk et al., 2014) and gilthead sea bream ( Sparus aurata L.; Wu et al., 2019). These results suggest that the threshold of feed intake may be determined by the gastrointestinal evacuation rate of the fish, which is an important mechanism that regulates fish growth and feed utilization efficiency (Jobling, Jørgensen, Arnesen, & Ringø, 1993; Wu et al., 2019). In our study, under apparent satiety feeding, weight gain continued to increase with more frequent feeding, which agrees with the satiety feeding patterns mentioned above (Booth et al., 2008; Tucker, Booth, Allan, Booth, & Fielder, 2006).…”

“…These combined results suggest that two feedings per day until apparent satiety is appropriate for maximum weight gain in juvenile black rockfish. The trend for decreasing feed efficiency with increased satiation feeding frequency and feed ration suggests that the feed intake threshold exists, and that juveniles may suffer ‘gastrointestinal overload’ with overfeeding (Booth et al., 2008; Eroldogan et al., 2004; Wu et al., 2019).…”

“…Several studies have reported that the fish body composition is significantly influenced by feeding regimes (Cho et al., 2006; Oh & Maran, 2015; Wu et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2015). Generally, fish tend to retain more proteins in the muscles at relatively low feeding rates, and with increasing feed rations, the body moisture content declines and the lipid content increases (Austreng, Storebakken, & Åsgård, 1987; Eroldogan et al., 2004).…”

“…The feeding frequency and ration are important factors underlying feed costs, feeding efficiency and fish growth (Silva et al., 2007). Several studies have investigated optimum feeding frequencies and rations in different fish species (Biswas et al., 2010; Cho & Bureau, 2001; Dwyer et al., 2002; Kam, Leung, & Ostrowski, 2003; Wu et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2010), but, to our knowledge, few have combined different feeding frequencies (apparent satiety versus restricted) and rations in a single experiment (Cho et al., 2006; Costa‐Bomfim et al., 2014; Eroldogan, Kumlu, & Aktas, 2004). This is surprising because the determination of the optimum feeding regimes should include different feed management practices simultaneously.…”