Effect of feed deprivation on compensatory growth in juvenile rock bream Oplegnathus fasciatus

Oh, Sung-Young; Park, Jeonghwan

doi:10.1007/s12562-019-01333-z

Cited by 6 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, as indicated in experiment 2 , in which fish were deprived for 1 day and the refeeding period was increased after feed deprivation, there was no difference in FE between the deprived fish and the controls. An improved FE has been reported in several cases of compensatory growth in fish (Foss et al., 2009; Oh & Park, 2019). Under more intense cycles of feed deprivation (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Compensatory growth of fish after feed deprivation has many advantages in aquaculture, including increasing efficient feed utilization and growth rates, and reducing food waste, feed costs and farming management costs (Oh & Park, 2019). Fish subjected to single periods of feed deprivation followed by satiation refeeding, or cyclical feed deprivation and refeeding, exhibited different extents of growth compensation (Ali et al., 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In studies with cyclic schedules of intermittent food deprivation, increased feed intake (Känkänen & Pirhonen, 2009; Mattila et al., 2009), improved feed conversion efficiency (Foss et al., 2009; Oh & Park, 2019; Turano et al., 2007) and a combination of both processes (Heide et al., 2006; Yılmaz et al., 2018) were found to be contributors to growth compensation in feed‐deprived fish. In the two experiments reported in the present study, M. albus juveniles also presented higher FRs (hyperphagia) during the refeeding period among all feed deprivation groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compensatory growth is typically defined as the response of an organism to recover its original body weight or growth trajectory following a certain time of feed deprivation or malnutrition (Ali et al., 2003; Jobling, 2010; Oh & Park, 2019). Compensatory growth is generally divided into non‐, partial, full‐ or over‐compensatory growth, depending on the degree of biomass recovery (Ali et al., 2003; Peres et al., 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For commercial aquaculture practices, reducing feed and labour costs is an essential issue. The application of compensatory growth could improve husbandry efficiency, enhance feed utilization, reduce culture costs and improve water quality (Oh & Park, 2019). Therefore, the objective of the current study was to evaluate differences in compensatory growth, feed utilization, feed intake and changes in chemical composition of M. albus with resumed feeding after various fasting periods, with the aim of providing a reference for large‐scale breeding and to establish a reasonable feeding strategy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Proper duration and intensity of feed deprivation promote a compensatory growth response in the ricefield eel, Monopterus albus

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two trials were conducted with different durations and intensities of food deprivation to investigate the compensatory growth, food utilization and body composition of the ricefield eel, Monopterus albus. The different feeding protocols were tested for 64 days in two stages: experiment 1 comprised four levels of feed deprivation (1‐day starvation and one‐day refeeding (S1F1), 2‐day starvation and 2‐day‐ refeeding (S2F2), 4‐day starvation and 4‐day refeeding (S4F4), 8‐day starvation and 8‐day refeeding (S8F8)) and a control level (daily feeding). Experiment 2 comprised three levels of deprivation (1‐day starvation and 2‐day refeeding [S1F2], 1‐day starvation and 3‐day refeeding [S1F3], and 1‐day starvation and 4‐day refeeding [S1F4]). In experiment 1, the final body weight and specific growth rate (SGR) of the fish in all feed deprivation groups were significantly lower than those of the control; however, the feeding rate (FR) in all feed deprivation groups was significantly higher than that of the control. The feed efficiency (FE) in the feed deprivation groups was significantly lower than those of the control. In experiment 2, the final body weight and SGR in S1F3 and S1F4 approached the mean weight of the control. FR increased in S1F3 and S1F4, but FE did not differ among groups and was higher than in experiment 1, indicating that feed utilization efficiency increased with prolonged refeeding time. Overall, under the experimental conditions, feed restriction for 1 day followed by longer refeeding might represent an adequate management strategy in M. albus rearing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Proper duration and intensity of feed deprivation promote a compensatory growth response in the ricefield eel, Monopterus albus

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Feed deprivation over 16 days followed by refeeding until 75 days fails to elicit full compensation of Procambarus clarkii

Luo

Wang

et al. 2022

Aquaculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compensatory growth: Fitness cost in farmed fish and crustaceans

Elizondo‐González

Peña‐Rodríguez

2022

Reviews in Aquaculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feed restriction in fish and crustaceans is gaining interest due to its unusual acceleration of growth after a feed deprivation period. This phenomenon, known as compensatory growth, allows deprived organisms to reach the weight of never‐stressed counterpart organisms. Since feed is the major economic and ecological burden of fish and crustaceans farming, succeeding to reduce its quantity without loss of production may enhance a sustainable aquaculture development. A wide variety of restriction/feeding protocols, involving differences in nature, duration and intensity, have been tested on aquatic organisms. However, not all of them lead to optimal compensatory growth. Furthermore, before extending this practice to industrial setting, it is essential to assess physiological costs associated with both food restriction and compensatory growth. Indeed, although fish and crustaceans appear to be tolerant to dietary restriction, it involves metabolic, digestive, oxidative and immune changes. Nevertheless, return to basal values is not always achieved through refeeding. Compensatory growth has been observed and described in many taxa; however, physiological mechanisms during this process are poorly understood. On the other hand, the acceleration of growth itself appears to generate physiological consequences in organisms, particularly through the generation of oxidative stress. This review provides an overview of the fitness consequences associated with dietary restriction and the subsequent enigmatic compensatory growth in fish and crustaceans.

show abstract

Effect of feed deprivation on compensatory growth in juvenile rock bream Oplegnathus fasciatus

Cited by 6 publications

References 39 publications

Proper duration and intensity of feed deprivation promote a compensatory growth response in the ricefield eel, Monopterus albus

Proper duration and intensity of feed deprivation promote a compensatory growth response in the ricefield eel, Monopterus albus

Feed deprivation over 16 days followed by refeeding until 75 days fails to elicit full compensation of Procambarus clarkii

Compensatory growth: Fitness cost in farmed fish and crustaceans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About