Volume 8, Issue 2 (2019)
JFST 2019, 8(2): 109-116 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Irani A, Agh N. Optimization of feeding rates for Beluga sturgeon (Huso huso). JFST 2019; 8 (2) :109-116
URL: http://jfst.modares.ac.ir/article-6-36573-en.html
URL: http://jfst.modares.ac.ir/article-6-36573-en.html
1- Assistant professor of Artemia and Aquaculture Institute, Urmia University , a.irani@urmia.ac.ir
2- Associate professor of Artemia and Aquaculture Institute, Urmia University
2- Associate professor of Artemia and Aquaculture Institute, Urmia University
Abstract: (3051 Views)
Aims: Due to vital role of optimum feeding rate on success and profitability of an aquaculture practice, feeding rates were examined in different life stages of Beluga sturgeon.
Methods: Feeding rates were 5%, 7%, 9%, 11%, 13% and 15% in stage 1; 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10% and 12% in stage 2; 1.5%, 2%, 2.5%, 3% and 3.5% in stage 3; 1.5%, 1.75%, 2%, 2.25% and 2.5% in stage 4. Farming durations of stages 1 to 4 were 10, 10, 42 and 56 days, as well as initial mean weights were 1.85, 7, 112.04 and 300.54 g, respectively.
Findings: Results showed that optimum feeding rates from growth and feeding parameters point of view were 9% and 5%, respectively, in stage 1. In stage 2 also optimum feeding rates were different from growth and feeding point of view, as they were 4% and 2%, respectively. For both aspects of growth and feeding parameters, optimum feeding rate was 2.5% of body weight in stage 3. In stage 4, the lowest food conversion rate was observed in the feeding rate of 1.5% and there were no significant differences between treatments from growth parameters point of view.
Conclusion: Growth and feeding parameters were affected with feeding rates in stages 1, 2 and 3. In stage 4, feeding rates influenced feeding parameters, but had no significant effects on growth performance.
Methods: Feeding rates were 5%, 7%, 9%, 11%, 13% and 15% in stage 1; 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10% and 12% in stage 2; 1.5%, 2%, 2.5%, 3% and 3.5% in stage 3; 1.5%, 1.75%, 2%, 2.25% and 2.5% in stage 4. Farming durations of stages 1 to 4 were 10, 10, 42 and 56 days, as well as initial mean weights were 1.85, 7, 112.04 and 300.54 g, respectively.
Findings: Results showed that optimum feeding rates from growth and feeding parameters point of view were 9% and 5%, respectively, in stage 1. In stage 2 also optimum feeding rates were different from growth and feeding point of view, as they were 4% and 2%, respectively. For both aspects of growth and feeding parameters, optimum feeding rate was 2.5% of body weight in stage 3. In stage 4, the lowest food conversion rate was observed in the feeding rate of 1.5% and there were no significant differences between treatments from growth parameters point of view.
Conclusion: Growth and feeding parameters were affected with feeding rates in stages 1, 2 and 3. In stage 4, feeding rates influenced feeding parameters, but had no significant effects on growth performance.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |