Compensatory Growth of Olive Flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus, Fed the Extruded Pellet with Different Feeding Regimes

Abstract

This study was performed to determine compensatory growth of juvenile olive flounder fed the extruded pellet (EP) with different feeding regimes. Seven treatments with triplicates of different feeding regimes were prepared; α fish was daily fed for 6 d a week throughout 8 wk (8WF); α fish was starved for 1 wk and then fed for 3 wk twice [(1WS + 3WF) × 2]; β fish was starved for 2 wk and then fed for 6 wk (2WS + 6WF); χ fish was starved for 5 d and then fed for 9 d four times [(5DS + 9DF) × 4]; δ fish was starved for 10 d and then fed for 18 d twice [(10DS + 18DF) × 2]; δ fish was starved for 2 d, fed for 5 d, starved for 3 d, and then fed for 4 d four times [(2DS + 5DF + 3DS + 4DF) × 4]; and φ fish was starved for 4 d, fed for 10 d, starved for 6 d, and then fed for 8 d twice [(4DS + 10DF + 6DS + 8DF) × 2], respectively. Total feeding day was all same, 36 d except for control group (48 d). Weight gain of flounder in the 8WF treatment was higher than that of fish in other treatments. And weight gain of flounder in the 2WS + 6WF treatment was higher than that of fish in the (5DS + 9DF) × 4 and (4DS + 10DF + 6DS + 8DF) × 2 treatments. Feed consumption of flounder in the 8WF treatment was higher than that of fish experienced feed deprivation. Feed efficiency ratio (FER), protein efficiency ratio (PER), and protein retention (PR) were not significantly different among treatments. Chemical composition of the whole body of fish with and without liver, except for moisture content of liver, was not different among treatments. T3 level of fish in the 8WF and 2WS + 6WF treatments was higher than that of fish in the (5DS + 9DF) × 4 treatment. It can be concluded that juvenile olive flounder achieved better compensatory growth at 6‐wk refeeding after 2‐wk feed deprivation compared with that of fish with different feeding regimes. And T3 level of fish seemed to partially play an important role in achieving compensatory growth.

Untitled

“…In our study, protein efficiency ratios were affected by feeding regimes. PER values did not significantly change in single and multiple cycle fed Atlantic halibut (Heide et al, 2006), varied cycle fed olive flounder (Cho and Cho, 2009) and single cycle fed rainbow trout (Sevgili et al, 2013). However, some studies have reported that PER values were affected by feeding model during compensation growth, as is the case in our study (Ali and Jauncey, 2004;Cho et al, 2006, Eroldoğan et al, 2008.…”

“…Additionally, full compensation (Kim and Lovell, 1995;Gaylord and Gatlin, 2001;Zhu et al, 2001Zhu et al, , 2005Qin, 2003, 2004;Nikki et al, 2004;Oh et al, 2007) and over compensation levels have also been obtained (Hayward et al, 1997;Turano et al, 2007). Also there have been many studies in which the starvation periods were short vs. long (Rueda et al, 1998;Şahin et al, 2000;Ali and Wootton, 2001;Qin, 2003, Eroldoğan et al, 2006b;Cho and Cho, 2009;Ribeiro and Tsuzuki, 2010;Chatzifotis et al, 2011) or the starvation and refeeding cycles were single vs. multiple (Aranyakananda et al, 1996;Wang et al, 2000Wang et al, , 2005Wang et al, , 2009Cho et al, 2006; Heide et al, Figure 2. Changes in body weight (g) of sea bass juveniles subjected to the follow feeding regimes during the experiment from day 10 to day 50: continuously fed to satiation (C group); 2 days starvation/8 days satiation (G1 group); 5 days starvation/20 days satiation (G2 group); 10 days starvation/40 days satiation (G3 group).…”

“…Red sea breams which were exposed to one, two or three weeks of starvation showed full compensatory growth at the end of a 9 week study (Oh et al, 2007). Two weeks starvation and 6 weeks refeeding with olive flounders showed better improvement as compared with a continuous feeding group (Cho and Cho, 2009). No compensatory growth was observed in gilthead sea breams on 60 day restricted feeding regimens (Bavcevic et al, 2010).…”

“…Similarly,10-day sampling periods of our study, both SGR and FI values increased during the refeeding period in 2 cycled 5 day starvation / 20 days satiation (G2) and single cycle 10 days starvation / 40 days satiation (G3) groups compared to the control group. The tendencies of SGR values depending on the length of the starvation period were reported for three cyprinid species (Leuciscus cephalus, Chalcalburnus chalcoides mento, and Scardinius erythrophthalmus) (Wieser et al, 1992), hybrid tilapia (Wang et al, 2000(Wang et al, , 2005, barramundi (Tian and Qin, 2003), red sea bream (Oh et al, 2007) and olive flounder (Cho and Cho, 2009) species. The higher feed intake in starved fishes compared to the control group during the refeeding period was interpreted as an effort for compensate for body weight lost during the starvation period.…”

“…Using these strategies, scientists have performed compensatory growth studies based on partial or complete starvation periods in different fish species in recent years. The effects of different feeding protocols on fish feed utilization, growth performance and body composition have been demonstrated previously (Gaylord and Gatlin, 2000;Nikki et al, 2004 et al, 2006;Cho and Cho, 2009;Kankanen and Pirhonen, 2009;Wang et al, 2009). In turbots, Scophthalmus maximus (L.), different restricted feeding regimens were carried out during 41 days and weight loss was observed.…”