Lack of compensatory growth response in gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) juveniles following starvation and subsequent refeeding

Perés, Helena; Santos, Sofia; Oliva-Teles, Aires

doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.06.010

Cited by 59 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Adakli and Tasbozan (2015) reported a significant reduction in total fat decentrarchus labrax starved for 10 days and refed 40 days when compared to the control (fed daily). Comparably, lower body lipid content in fish subjected to starvation /refeeding regimes were reported in various studies (Tian & Qin, 2004;Oh, Noh, & Cho, 2007;Peres et al, 2011;Zhu et al, 2001). These findings in part concur with the present study, which presented significantly lower muscle lipid and protein in 2DD2DRF and 2DD3DRF fish compared to the control and those submitted to a 2DD4DRF treatment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Correspondingly, hybrid tilapia juveniles (O. niloticus x O. aureus) deprived of feed 3 days per week presented poor growth compared to those deprived for 1 and 2 days, respectively (Abdel-Hakim et al, 2009). Poor compensatory growth in fish exposed to longer deprivation periods were also reported in Nile tilapia (Gao & Lee, 2012;Passinato et al, 2015), O. mossambicus (Christensesn & Mclean, 1998), and in other species such as Centropomus parallelus (Ribeiro & Tsuzuki, 2010) and Sparus aurata (Peres, Santos, & Oliva-Teles, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Untitled

Gabriel¹,

Omoregi²,

Martin³

et al. 2018

Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to determine compensatory growth response of short-term starvation and refeeding cycles on Oreochromis mossambicus juveniles. A total of 360 juveniles were randomly divided into 12 tanks in triplicate groups. The control group (C) was fed three times a day to satiation. The feeding regimes of the other groups were designed as follows: 2 days deprivation /2 days refeeding (2DD2DRF), 2 days deprivation /3 days refeeding (2DD3DRF), and 2 days deprivation /4 days refeeding (2DD4DRF). After 60 days, only fish in 2DD4DRF group presented partial compensatory growth; no significant difference (P>0.05) was observed in the final weight (FW), and specific growth weight (SGR) compared to the control. Hepatosomatic index (HSI), viscerosomatic index (VSI), and condition factor (CF) was not affected by these feeding regimes. Furthermore, improved feed conversion ratio (FCR), and feed efficiency ratio (FER) were observed in 2DD4DRF fish, among groups. Feed intake (FI) was significantly lower (P<0.05) in starved fish compared to C. Meanwhile, muscle crude protein and lipid content in 2DD2DRF, and 2DD3DRF groups was significantly lower (P<0.05) compared to C and 2DD4DRF group. Compensatory growth response in 2DD4DRF presents possibilities for economic optimization in O. mossambicus production.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Untitled

Gabriel¹,

Omoregi²,

Martin³

et al. 2018

Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Compensatory growth was reported in Hybrid sea basses exposed to 2 weeks starvation, Red sea breams 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) and olive flounders exposed to two weeks starvation and 6 weeks refeeding showed better improvement as compared with a continuous feeding group ). On the other hand, no compensatory growth was recorded in gilthead sea breams on 60 day restricted feeding regimes (Bavcevic et al, 2010) and in another study, sea breams exposed to different starvation periods did not show any compensatory growth during a 10 week cycle (Peres et al, 2011). Some similar partial compensation results have been obtained in previous studies carried out on different fish species and feeding models (Jobling, 1993;Hayward et al, 2000;Ali and Jauncey, 2004;Wang et al, 2005Wang et al, , 2009Eroldoğan et al, 2006Eroldoğan et al, , 2008Mattila et al, 2009;Liu et al, 2011).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 73%

Insight into The Role of Alternative Starvation-Refeeding Regime in Oreochromis niloticus Fingerlings Performance

Moustafa¹,

El‐Kader²,

El‐Habashi³

et al. 2017

AJVS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key words:Aeromonas hydrophila, Fingerlings, Oreochromis niloticus, Refeeding, Starvation Knowledge of how fish respond to starvation periods could provide a basis for improved nutrition, rearing, disease control and thereby help to optimize Oreochromis niloticus culture. In the current study, the effect of alternative starvation-refeeding regime was monitored on some growth, hematological and serum biochemical parameters in Nile tilapia fingerlings; followed by checking the role of these feeding schedules in combating the disease challenge. The study was performed in glass aquariums at the aquaculture research unit, Sakha, Kafr El-Sheikh governorate, Egypt using 375 Oreochromis niloticus fingerlings weighing 29±0.5 gram. Fingerlings were subjected to different starvation periods (7, 10, 14, 21 days), followed by 30 days of refeeding on a commercial fish ration (25% protein). Fish growth parameters, hematological and serum biochemical parameters were recorded before starvation, before refeeding and after 30 days of refeeding. The experimental challenge was carried out to determine the effect of different starvation intervals followed by refeeding regimes on the immunity of O. niloticus fingerlings; against bacterial infection with Aeromonas hydrophila through recording mortality rates and the histopathological finding.The collected results revealed that fingerlings can recover all the hematological and serum biochemical parameter values of all food deprived groups close to the normal level of full-fed control fish; concluding that O. niloticus can easily be cultured on suitable economic short-time feeding regime with subsequent refeeding in alternate days without any significant differences in fish size and final production (reducing the food amount and cost required for production cycle). Besides, short-term starvation prior to a bacterial infection followed by subsequent refeeding could promote the defense mechanism of the fish to fight against Aeromonas hydrophila.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the lower body lipid composition of G3 compared to the other groups in our study was caused by the reduction of lipids, which is the primary resource in fish, for the protection of basal metabolism and survival during starvation. Similarly, many researchers have reported that the body lipid content decreased as a result of starvation regime applications (Rueda et al, 1998;Wang et al, 2000Wang et al, , 2005Wang et al, , 2009Zhu et al, 2001;Tian and Qin, 2003;Oh et al, 2007;Peres et al, 2011). TF values, which indicate the fattening of body cavities and internal organs, were similar in all groups except G3 group.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 65%

“…No compensatory growth was observed in gilthead sea breams on 60 day restricted feeding regimens (Bavcevic et al, 2010). In another study with sea breams, different starvation periods did not lead to compensatory growth during a 10 week cycle (Peres et al, 2011). It was seen that during starvation, the reserves (especially lipid composition) in the fish decreased.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Untitled

Adakli¹,

Taşbozan²

2015

Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to investigate the effects of starvation and refeeding cycles on growth performance and body chemical composition of juvenile sea bass. For this purpose, a total of 720 juveniles with an initial mean weight (IW) of 5.85±0.54 g were divided into 12 tanks (400 L) in triplicate groups. During the period of the experiment, the control group (C) was fed to satiation three times a day. The feeding regimes of the other three groups were designed as follows: 2 days starvation / 8 days satiation (G1) (5 cycles), 5 days starvation / 20 days satiation (G2) (2 cycles) and 10 days starvation / 40 days satiation (G3) (1 cycle). After 50 days, only group G1 demonstrated partial compensatory growth. The difference between the final weights (FW) of groups was found statistically significant (P<0.05). Specific growth rates (SGR) of fasting groups were lower than those of the control group (P<0.05). G1group was determined to have the best values of feed conversion ratio (FCR) and economic conversion ratio (ECR). Hepatosomatic index (HSI) did not differ significantly between groups (P>0.05). Total fat (TF) was lowest in G3 (P<0.05). The partial compensation by group G1 presents possibilities for economic optimization.

show abstract

Lack of compensatory growth response in gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) juveniles following starvation and subsequent refeeding

Cited by 59 publications

References 38 publications

Untitled

Untitled

Insight into The Role of Alternative Starvation-Refeeding Regime in Oreochromis niloticus Fingerlings Performance

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About