Replacing fish meal with increasing levels of meat and bone meal, soybean meal and corn gluten meal, in diets of juvenile bluegill,Lepomis macrochirus

Abstract

A 60-day study was conducted to determine the response of juvenile bluegill Lepomis macrochirus to seven experimental diets, formulated using a blend of alternative protein sources as a replacement for fish meal. Adequate levels (digestible basis) of energy, protein and amino acids were maintained in diets 1-6, whereas slightly lower protein and energy levels were provided in diet 7. Feed cost per tonne ranged from $ 798.9 (diet 1, 550 g Kg À1 fish meal) to $ 515.8 (diet 6, 0 g kg −1 fish meal), or to $ 507.2 (diet 7, 0 g Kg À1 fish meal). Three commercial diets were included in the study as reference diets: a highenergy and a low-energy trout diet, as well as a catfish diet. Quintuplicate bluegill groups (~22 g, n = 10 fish group À1 ) were fed the experimental diets twice daily to apparent satiation. No major differences in feed consumption, feed efficiency and growth rates were detected among the bluegill groups fed the experimental diets. Trout diets generally produced higher fish fat deposition, whereas the catfish diet produced a poorer fish growth rate relative to the experimental diets. Under the reported conditions, results indicate diet 6, comprising predominantly soybean meal and porcine meat and bone meal, to be the most economical diet for juvenile bluegill.

Effect of partial and total replacement of fishmeal with sand smelt (Atherina boyeri) meal in practical diets for mono sex Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fingerlings.

“…Also, the values higher of (Fat and Gross energy) in the control treatment. Similar that Masagounder et al, (2014) in juvenile bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, Gumus, (2011) in Mirror Carp (Cyprinus Carpio).…”

Evaluation of Porcine Meat and Bone Meal in Diets for Pond‐Raised Hybrid Catfish

“…However, Masagounder et al. () found no significant differences in feed intake, weight gain, and FCR in Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus fed diets containing up to 52% PMBM as complete replacement for fish meal. The drastic differences in acceptable dietary inclusion levels of PMBM reported in these studies may be species specific and are likely caused by differences in PMBM quality, dietary ingredient composition and nutrient balance, fish size and age, or other experimental conditions.…”

Evidence of morphological and functional variation among BluegillLepomis macrochiruspopulations across Grand Lake St Mary's watershed area

“…From a management perspective, Bluegill is a highly sought after sportfish and are heavily stocked in many lakes, reservoirs, and ponds (Jackson 2002;Yokogawa 2013;Taguchi et al 2014). From a biological perspective, past works have described their general niche (Spotte 2007), diet (Werner & Hall 1988;Masagounder et al 2014), behavior (Werner & Hall 1977;Partridge et al 2015), and aspects of morphology ranging from variation between sizes, sexes, particular habitats (micro and macro), reproductive state, and life histories, to the role that museum preservation may play on shape (Layzer and Clady 1987;Ehlinger 1990;Ehlinger 1991;Ehlinger et al 1997;Yokogawa 2009;Colborne et al 2011;Gaston et al 2013;Yokogawa 2013;Gaston and Lauer 2015). However, despite this growing literature base there is a lack of watershed level information on the relative influence of body size, sex, and habitat (particularly with regard to morphological responses to flow) that controls for covariates, accounts for interactions, and uses laboratory testing to directly verify and test any resulting hypothesized links with any functional application to the observed morphological variation in Bluegill.…”