Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Basically the final growth and survival results indicate that catering <br />to the brown trouts' bottom-feeding behavior increased the growth as seen <br />in lots five and six. Observation of the fish during the experiment showed <br />the submerged feed delivery system caused a behavioral response. The fish <br />congregated at the mouths of the feed delivery tubes and oriented themselves <br />into the water flow coming out of the tubes. They were in place when the <br />feed was delivered. The effect of the tubes as a substrate for the fish to <br />hide among may have been an unforeseen influence. <br />In summary, removal of human interference during feeding by use of <br />automatic feeders did not conclusively demonstrate a growth benefit except <br />when submerged feed delivery systems were also used. Only a slight growth <br />benefit was noted in those lots fed by automatic feeders with surface deli- <br />very, perhaps indicating the reluctance of the brown trout to surface feed <br />even without human interference. <br /> <br />LITERATURE CITED <br /> <br />Harris, L. E. :1.980. Trout nutrition and disease studies. Colo. Div. <br />Wildl. Job Prog. Rep., Fed. Aid F-28-R-16. 82 p. <br /> <br />Horak, D. L. 1969. Hatchery trout feeding levels. Colo. Div. Game, Fish <br />and Parks. Fish. Inform. Leafl. No. 14. 4 p. <br /> <br />Willis, D. W., and S. A. Flickinger. 1980. Training success of brook, <br />brown, and lake trout fry onto a prepared diet. Prog. Fish-Cult. <br />42(4) :241-242. <br /> <br />53 <br />