Growth of Hatchery-Reared Lake Trout Fed by Demand Feeders

Aloisi, Douglas B.

doi:10.1577/1548-8640(1994)056<0040:gohrlt>2.3.co;2

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The period from start to onset of demand‐feeding has been reported to be within 1 or 2 days in rainbow trout, 7,10 Arctic charr 13 and European sea bass 15 . In contrast, Aloisi 18 reported that it took 45 days for the conditioning of lake trout and this long‐term conditioning was considered due to the less aggressive or less adaptable characteristic of this species. Also, Landless 7 reported that, in the case of rainbow trout, learning to demand‐feed was faster in groups of fish (2 days) than in a single fish (7 days).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research applying demand‐feeding to aquaculture has been carried out in Europe since the latter half of the 1970s and has involved species such as rainbow trout, 7–12 Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus , 13,14 European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax 1,15–17 and lake trout Salvelinus namaycush. 18 These applicatory studies informed us that the demand‐feeding pattern of fish could be changeable according to differences in rearing conditions even in the same species. For example, rainbow trout showed a peak at dusk and also a high level of nocturnal feeding activity 7 in field conditions, and yet showed a clear diurnal pattern synchronizing the given LD cycle in the experimental room conditions 10 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nocturnal/diurnal demand-feeding pattern of yellowtail Seriola quinqueradiata under different keeping conditions

Kohbara

Hidaka

Kuriyama³

et al. 2000

Fisheries Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY: Demand‐feeding behavior of juvenile yellowtails was examined under two different light conditions: in an experimental room and in the outdoors. In the indoor experiment, five groups of 20 juvenile yellowtails (mean bodyweight, 16.0 g) were allocated individually to five 200 L cylindrical tanks set up in the experimental room. A rod‐type tactile switch was used for activating the feeding device which delivered 5–10 pellets per actuation. Each tank was illuminated by an overhead fluorescent lamp with a LD 12:12 photoperiod regime. In the outdoor experiment, 69 juvenile yellowtails (mean bodyweight, 79.8 g) were allocated to a 7000 L cylindrical tank. A switch with a string that ends in a rubber, pellet‐like knob was used. The feeding device delivered 90–120 pellets by activation of the switch. In both experiments, yellowtail learned demand‐feeding within 1–3 days. The number of feeder actuations gradually increased during the experimental period in both experiments, presumably relating both to the rate of learning and to growth of the fish. The yellowtails in the indoor system showed a clear diurnal feeding pattern synchronizing to the given photoperiod, whereas those in the outdoor system showed a clear nocturnal feeding pattern also synchronizing to the outdoor natural photoperiod. Thus, the results showed that yellowtail has an ability for demand‐feeding both in light and dark phases. These exact opposite results may have been caused by the difference in intensity of the luminance between the inside of the experimental room and the outdoors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Nocturnal/diurnal demand-feeding pattern of yellowtail Seriola quinqueradiata under different keeping conditions

Kohbara

Hidaka

Kuriyama³

et al. 2000

Fisheries Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several authors have shown that, within a group of 50 juvenile sea bass, only a few individuals defined as high-triggering fish were responsible for the majority of food demands in the group, whereas the rest of the population exhibited the defined low-or zerotriggering activity (Covès et al 2006;Di-Poï et al 2007;Millot et al 2008). Lastly, self-feeding systems are also very promising for fish farming because they can improve growth and feed conversion ratios , they are an attractive alternative to either hand-feeding or automated feeding systems due to their low labour costs (Aloisi 1994), and offer a response to the new concerns about animal welfare, even though their commercial development has been rather limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of size grading on sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) juvenile self-feeding behaviour, social structure and culture performance

Benhaïm

Péan

Brisset

et al. 2011

Aquat. Living Resour.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-This study aims to test the influence of size grading on self-feeding behaviour, social structure (measured by the percentage of triggering acts per individual), growth performances, and blood physiological variables of individually passive integrated transponder (PIT)-tagged sea bass juveniles, using a computerized on-demand feeding system coupled with a PIT tag monitoring device. Three consecutive periods of 27 days each were compared: a first period (P1) before grading (6 tanks of 100 fish; 40.2 ± 8.9 g) followed by a second period (P2) after grading. The protocol applied aimed to create two groups of fish of similar mean weight but with either a low or a high coefficient of variation of weight (CV w ) corresponding to an imposed difference in social disruption (T low : CV w~1 0%, 3 tanks of 60 fish each with social disruption; T high: CV w~2 0%, 3 tanks of 60 fish each, without social disruption). T low and T high groups were studied over P2, and an additional 27-day period under identical conditions (P3). The grading protocol used and/or time modified the social structure when comparing P1 and P2. Thereafter, during P2 and P3, no difference could be observed in growth performances, feed demand, or physiological variables between T low and T high groups. Feeding rhythms and social structures were similar in both groups. In conclusion, such grading practice only transiently modifies feed demand behaviour and social structure built around the self-feeder, without further improvement in individual growth performances in sea bass.

show abstract

“…Using a self‐feeding system for rearing fishes 1–11 is fundamentally different from using a timer‐controlled feeding system on the basis of the meal cue mechanism. The former system allows the fish to eat at any time they prefer; therefore, the fish themselves are the cue holders of meals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of reward level on the number of food demands in yellowtail Seriola quinqueradiata

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of reward level (amount of food received in response to one trigger actuation) on the self‐feeding activity of juvenile yellowtails was examined. Three groups of 10 juvenile yellowtails (mean bodyweight, 65.6 g) were allocated randomly to three 200 L cylindrical tanks set in the experiment room. Each tank was illuminated by overhead fluorescent lamps with a light : dark photoperiod regimen of 12 h : 12 h (light 06.00–18.00 hours). A rod‐type tactile switch was used to activate the self‐feeding device. Three levels of reward were set up by installing a different number of identical feeders for each group: one feeder for the low‐reward group, three feeders for the medium‐reward group and five feeders for the high‐reward group. Each feeder delivered 3–7 pellets per actuation. Yellowtails in all groups showed a clearly diurnal feeding pattern that was synchronized to the given photoperiod. Average number of feeder actuations per day was highest (219/day) in the low‐reward group. Second highest was the medium‐reward group (116/day), and last was the high‐reward group (67/day). The resultant average feed intake per day was 27.1 g/day in the low‐reward group, 31.5 g/day in the medium‐reward group and 28.4 g/day in the high‐reward group. Thus, yellowtails appear to have the ability to regulate the amount of feed delivered daily by increasing the number of food demands when the reward is low and decreasing the number of food demands when the reward is high.

show abstract

Growth of Hatchery-Reared Lake Trout Fed by Demand Feeders

Cited by 16 publications

References 10 publications

Nocturnal/diurnal demand-feeding pattern of yellowtail Seriola quinqueradiata under different keeping conditions

Nocturnal/diurnal demand-feeding pattern of yellowtail Seriola quinqueradiata under different keeping conditions

Effect of size grading on sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) juvenile self-feeding behaviour, social structure and culture performance

Effect of reward level on the number of food demands in yellowtail Seriola quinqueradiata

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About