Somatic and physiological responses to cyclic fasting and re-feeding periods in sobaity sea bream (Sparidentex hasta, Valenciennes 1830)

Abstract

Different fasting and re-feeding cycles were tested in a 60-day trial in sobaity sea bream (Sparidentex hasta) juveniles to evaluate their effects on growth, physiological and biochemical parameters. Fish were exposed in triplicate to the following feeding regimes: control (fed everyday); F-RF 1+1 (1 day of starvation followed by 1 day of re-feeding); F-RF 2+2 (2 days of starvation followed by 2 days of re-feeding); F-RF 3+3 (3 days of starvation followed by 3 days of re-feeding); F-RF 6+6 (6 days of starvation followed by 6 days of re-feeding); and F-RF 1+2 (1 day of starvation followed by 2 days of re-feeding). A reduction in body mass between 10.0% (F-RF 1+1 ) and 24.3% (F-RF 6+6 ) was found in comparison with the control group after 60 days. As the length of fasting increased, the compensation coefficients in feed intake and weight gain decreased. Body lipid content decreased as fasting cycles increased. Haemoglobin, plasma protein, lysozyme and alkaline phosphatase activities were the most reliable biomarkers for assessing the nutritional condition in sobaity sea bream. A feeding strategy based on 1 day of starvation followed by 2 days of re-feeding (F-RF 1+2 group) may be advisable for on-growing sobaity sea bream without reduction in growth and alteration of their haematological and physiological parameters.

Effect of short‐term fasting and re‐feeding on growth, digestive enzyme activities and antioxidant defence in yellowfin seabream,Acanthopagrus latus(Houttuyn, 1782)

“…On the other hand, partial CG achieved in European sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax with 5‐day fasting followed by 20 days of re‐feeding for 50 days (Adaklı & Taşbozan, ); in Persian sturgeon, Acipenser persicus with 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks of fasting followed by 20 days of re‐feeding for 4 weeks (Yarmohammadi et al, ); and in S. aurata (with initial weight 6.4, 14 and 10.4 g, respectively) with these strategies including 50% restricted feeding ratio for 2 days followed by 2 days of feeding to apparent satiation for 48 days (Eroldoğan, Suzer, Taşbozan, & Tabakoğlu, ; Eroldoğan, Tasbozan, & Tabakoglu, ), 1‐day fasting followed by 2 days of re‐feeding (Eroldoğan, Kumlu, Kiris, & Sezer, ) or 1‐day fasting followed by 5 days of re‐feeding for 60 days (Yilmaz & Eroldoğan, ). In contrast, no CG was reported in S. aurata subjected to 1 or 2 weeks fasting followed by 8 weeks of re‐feeding (Peres, Santos, & Oliva‐Teles, ) or in S. hasta submitted to 3 or 6 days fasting followed by 3 or 6 days of re‐feeding for 60 days (Torfi Mozanzadeh et al, ). Thus, from the mentioned studies it is postulated that different factors such as species, size and duration of feed restriction, health and nutritional status before feed restriction and abiotic factors (e.g.…”

“…In addition, Bavcevic, Klanjscek, Karamarko, Anicic, and Legovic () reported full compensation in gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata with feeding limited at 1.4% body weight for 30 days followed by re‐feeding to satiation for 30 days. Moreover, Oh, Kim, Kwon, and Venmathi Maran () found complete compensation in blackhead seabream, Acanthopagrus schlegelii schlegelii with 1‐day fasting followed by 5 or 6 days of re‐feeding for 16 weeks, while Torfi Mozanzadeh et al () noticed this phenomenon in sobaity seabream, Sparidentex hasta deprived for 1 day followed by 2 days of re‐feeding for 60 days. On the other hand, partial CG achieved in European sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax with 5‐day fasting followed by 20 days of re‐feeding for 50 days (Adaklı & Taşbozan, ); in Persian sturgeon, Acipenser persicus with 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks of fasting followed by 20 days of re‐feeding for 4 weeks (Yarmohammadi et al, ); and in S. aurata (with initial weight 6.4, 14 and 10.4 g, respectively) with these strategies including 50% restricted feeding ratio for 2 days followed by 2 days of feeding to apparent satiation for 48 days (Eroldoğan, Suzer, Taşbozan, & Tabakoğlu, ; Eroldoğan, Tasbozan, & Tabakoglu, ), 1‐day fasting followed by 2 days of re‐feeding (Eroldoğan, Kumlu, Kiris, & Sezer, ) or 1‐day fasting followed by 5 days of re‐feeding for 60 days (Yilmaz & Eroldoğan, ).…”

Compensatory growth of Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus , L. subjected to cyclic periods of feed restriction and feeding in a biofloc system

“…Productive performance of Nile tilapia was evaluated according to the following indices (Mozanzadeh et al, ):where…”

Effects of intermittent feeding on water quality, skin parasites, feed consumption, and growth performance of juvenile longfin yellowtailSeriola rivoliana(Valenciennes, 1833)

“…Determination of growth relationship for different production and management systems is essential for the economic evaluation of feeding protocols (Jiwyam, 2010). Strategies of feed deprivation in aquaculture has been practised to establish feeding schedules that enhance growth rates and feed conversion efficiency, thus reducing labour costs and water quality problems (Morshedi et al, 2017;Mozanzadeh et al, 2017). However, restricted feeding impairs fish health due to increased stress condition (Shah, Hussain, Ali, & Salam, 2017) and fostering disease susceptibility (Li, Tian, Zhang, Jiang, & Liu, 2014).…”