Effects of different feeding frequencies on growth, feed utilisation, digestive enzyme activities and plasma biochemistry of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) fed with different fishmeal and fish oil dietary levels
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Feeding frequency during the on-growing phase of Mediterranean aquaculture has received little attention
- A study investigated the effects of different feeding frequencies on gilthead sea bream
- Three feeding frequencies were tested: one meal per day, two meals per day, and three meals per day
- Feeding frequency did not significantly affect overall performance or feed efficiency
- Pepsin activity decreased in fish receiving more than one meal a day, particularly in low fishmeal diets
- Trypsin levels decreased with an increasing number of meals only under low fishmeal/fish oil diet
- Plasma parameters related to nutritional and physiological conditions were not affected by feeding frequency
- Fish fed a single daily meal with high fishmeal/fish oil level exhibited higher plasma creatinine levels
- Gilthead sea bream can maximize feed utilization regardless of the number of meals provided
- Findings could be valuable for optimizing fish growth and reducing feeding costs in Mediterranean aquaculture.
Authors: S. Busti (Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences University of Bologna), A. Bonaldo (Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences University of Bologna), F. Dondi (Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences University of Bologna), D. Cavallini (Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences University of Bologna), M. Yufera (Instituto de Ciencias Marinas de Andalucía), N. Gilannejad (Instituto de Ciencias Marinas de Andalucía), F. J. Moyano (Department of Biology and Geology Universidad de Almería), P. P Gatta (Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences University of Bologna), L. Parma (Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences University of Bologna)
Abstract: In the context of Mediterranean aquaculture little attention has been paid to the manipulation of feeding frequency at the on-growing phase. The effects of different feeding frequencies: one meal per day, two meals per day, three meals per day on growth, digestive enzyme activity, feed digestibility and plasma biochemistry were studied in gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata, L. 1758) fed with high and low fishmeal and fish oil levels. Isonitrogenous and isolipidic extruded diets were fed to triplicate fish groups by a fixed ration over 109 days. No significant effects of feeding frequency on overall performance, feed efficiency and feed digestibility during the on-growing of gilthead sea bream fed high or low fishmeal and fish oil dietary level were observed. Pepsin activity showed an apparent decrease in fish receiving more than one meal a day which was not compensated by an increased production of alkaline proteases particularly in fish fed on low FM. Although there were no effects on growth and feed utilisation at increasing feeding frequency, trypsin decreased significantly with an increasing number of meals only under low FMFO diet. Thus, it seemed that consecutive meals could have amplified the potential trypsin inhibitor effect of the vegetable meal-based diet adopted. Results of the plasma parameters related to nutritional and physiological conditions were not affected by feeding frequency. The higher level of plasma creatinine detected in fish fed a single daily meal with high FMFO level seems to be within physiological values in relation to the higher protein efficiency observed with this diet. According to the results, gilthead sea bream seems able to maximise feed utilisation regardless of the number of meals, and this could be a useful indicator for planning feeding activity at farm level to optimise growth of fish and costs of feeding procedures.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.