2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2095.2010.00834.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating options for fishmeal replacement in diets for juvenile barramundi (Lates calcarifer)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
46
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
6
46
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, the diets used in the present trial were considerably harder, ranging from 33.2 to 54.3 N, compared to those used by Aas et al (2011b), ranging from 20.1 to 27.3 N. Contradictive findings were previously reported about the relationship between hardness and feed intake (reviewed by Sørensen, 2012). In line with Glencross et al (2011b) and Baeverfjord et al (2006), the present findings indicate no evident relationship between feed intake and hardness, as well as a positive relationship between feed intake and long term water stability. Contradictive findings among experiments about the interaction of physical quality and feed intake may be related to species differences as well as feed intake levels, and physical differences not covered by the methods used.…”
Section: Feed Intake Growth and Feed Utilisationsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…Also, the diets used in the present trial were considerably harder, ranging from 33.2 to 54.3 N, compared to those used by Aas et al (2011b), ranging from 20.1 to 27.3 N. Contradictive findings were previously reported about the relationship between hardness and feed intake (reviewed by Sørensen, 2012). In line with Glencross et al (2011b) and Baeverfjord et al (2006), the present findings indicate no evident relationship between feed intake and hardness, as well as a positive relationship between feed intake and long term water stability. Contradictive findings among experiments about the interaction of physical quality and feed intake may be related to species differences as well as feed intake levels, and physical differences not covered by the methods used.…”
Section: Feed Intake Growth and Feed Utilisationsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…FR‐L‐treated fish showed a significant increase in whole‐body DHA, and this suggests that high‐level conservation or possible synthesis of DHA from EPA was occurred in higher feeding‐restricted fish (Glencross et al . , ). In addition, the relatively high DHA level in the whole body of FR‐L‐treated fish could be selective utilization of shorter chain, less unsaturated FA and a more highly conservation of DHA in the whole body of feeding‐restricted fish.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The high cost of fish meal and concerns regarding its future availability have made it imperative for the nutritionists to reduce or eliminate the fish meal from fish and crustacean diets as a strategy to avoid any risk on the future of aquaculture industry (Muzinic et al., 2006; Brinker and Reiter, 2011; Kumar et al., 2011a; Oujifard et al., 2011). Substantial efforts have been made around the globe in evaluating the wide range of potential ingredients of plant (Mohanta et al., 2007; Nyina‐wamwiza et al., 2007; Erdogan and Olmez, 2010; Monentcham et al., 2010; Brinker and Reiter, 2011; Glencross et al., 2011; Kumar et al., 2011a,b; Oujifard et al., 2011) and animal (Guo et al., 2006; Muzinic et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2006; Yigit et al., 2006; Cavalheiro et al., 2007; Nyina‐wamwiza et al., 2007; Ahmad, 2008; Gümüş et al., 2009, 2010; Gümüş, 2011) origins. However, inclusion of plant protein above 25–50% of the total of the total diet frequently results in reduction of growth and/or high mortalities attributed to an improper balance of indispensable amino acids, a reduced digestibility of lipid and energy, the presence of antinutritional factors and/or the poor palatability (Nyina‐wamwiza et al., 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%