Laserfiche WebLink
<br />All lots were handled identically throughout the experiment. Vital in- <br />formation and comments were ]ecorded on charts for each lot. Beginning fish <br />weight densities (.09 lbs/ft )3were the same for each lot in the half-trough <br />rearing space (volume = 5.3 ft). Water flows were standardized at 5 gpm <br />and checked weekly. A common water source (deep-bore well) with a constant <br />520F temperature was used for all groups. Mortalities were replaced for the <br />first 3 days of the experiment then recorded daily thereafter. Each lot was <br />weighed bi-monthly to determine growth rates and adjust feeding according <br />to weight gain and fish losses. Feeding rates were calculated from a modi- <br />fied Butterbaugh and Willoughby formula (Horak 1969). <br />Criteria for evaluation were growth (total weight gain and inches/day <br />increase), survival, and size uniformity of the final product. Total weight <br />gain was determined from the final total weights of each lot at experiment <br />end. Inches/day increase was determined from the average actual total length <br />measurement of 50 fish samples, subtracting beginning total lengths and <br />dividing the increase by number of experiment days. Uniformity was studied <br />from the total length measures using length-frequency distributions. The <br />experiment was terminated after 98 days. Statistical analysis was restricted <br />to comparison of average total length measurements at end of the experiment <br />using a student t-test and a biological significance level of 95%. <br /> <br />RESULTS <br /> <br />The experiment design kept the six lots of fish on the same diets for <br />the first 28 days. Therefore, results before the feed switch (Table 2) re- <br />flect manner of feeding differences. Survivals were approximately the same <br />in all lots. Total weight gains and calculated average inches/day increases <br />clearly show lots five and six to have the highest growth rates. Total <br />weight gains in these two lots were two to three times greater than the <br />other four lots. Calculated average inches/day increases in lots five and <br />six were two to four times higher than the other groups. <br /> <br />Table 2. Growth results before feed switch (28 days). <br /> <br />Lot <br /> <br />Manner fed <br /> <br />Weight gain Increase <br />(g) (inches/day) <br />146 .0010 <br />158 .0012 <br />174 .0015 <br />192 .0018 <br />376 .0049 <br />342 .0040 <br /> <br />% Survival <br /> <br />1 Hand <br />2 Hand <br />3 Auto-surface <br />4 Auto-surface <br />5 Auto-submerged <br />6 Auto-submerged <br /> <br />98.3 <br />96.8 <br />98.0 <br />97.8 <br />97.9 <br />97.2 <br /> <br />Final growth results do not conclusively indicate a diet preference, <br />whereas manner of feeding appeared to have a noticeable effect (Table 3). <br />Lots five and six fed by automatic feeders with submerged feed delivery sys- <br />tems, had the largest total weight gains, inches/day increases, and percent <br />51 <br />