1998
DOI: 10.1016/s0044-8486(98)00244-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Variability in appetite of turbot, Scophthalmus maximus under intensive rearing conditions: the role of environmental factors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
21
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
5
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The food intake did not vary between the populations and was related mainly to temperature in line with earlier studies (Mallekh et al, 1998). However, the Norwegian population showed higher overall food conversion efficiency compared with the two other populations (Table II).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The food intake did not vary between the populations and was related mainly to temperature in line with earlier studies (Mallekh et al, 1998). However, the Norwegian population showed higher overall food conversion efficiency compared with the two other populations (Table II).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…This corroborates similar observations made on European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax (Lefrançois 2001) and turbot Scophthalmus maximus (Mallekh & Lagardère 2002). In the latter species, neither food intake (Mallekh et al 1998) nor growth (Person-Le Ruyet et al 2001) was improved when fish were raised under hyperoxic conditions. In rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, the maximal oxygen consumption measured in forced-swum fish and the critical swimming speed (U crit ) are not raised by hyperoxia either (Duthie & Hughes 1987).…”
Section: Effect Of Oxygensupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Forbes (2003) found for terrestrial farm animals also that the daily intake fluctuations were (weakly) organized in relation to time but concluded that varying intake is merely a means of detecting and maintaining an optimal intake. For turbot in a practical farm situation, Mallekh et al (1998) found that environmental variation could explain only 26% of day-to-day variation in feed intake, while on a longer time scale, using fortnightly means, 86% of the variation could be explained. In a later study these authors showed that for turbot on this longer time scale feed intake was linearly related to metabolic scope (Mallekh and Lagardere 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%