Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the growth performanceof gilthead sea bream (Sparusaurata) fed by different feed amounts in the Black Sea. The gilthead sea bream with an average weight of 11.24±0.04 g was fed by restricted amounts of food (Group I) and ad libitum (Group II) for 127 days. At the end of the study, the average weight and feed conversion rates of Group I and Group II were 70.58±0.79 and 74.26±0.54 g and 1.68±0.07 and 2.19±0.15 g, respectively. Group II showed higher growth between III and VI periods where the water temperature was relatively high. The growth was limited in the periods between VII to IX under optimal temperature value. At the end of the study, growth differenceswere not significantly differed between the groups (p>0.05). While the final weight, relative growth rate, specific growth rate, feed efficiency and survival were not significantly different (p>0.05), there was a significant difference in feed conversion rate between the groups (p<0.05). At the end of the study, it could be concluded that water temperature is the most important factor in the growth rate of Gilthead Sea Bream in the Black Sea.   Keywords: Black sea, Gilthead sea bream (Sparusaurata), feeding, growth, feed efficiency, temperature.

Highlights

  • Effe ects off differrent fee ed amo ounts on the e grow wth perforrmance e of gillthead sea bream ((Sparu usaurata) in

  • At th he end of the study, the t average weight and feed converrsion rates o of Group I and Group II were 70.58

  • C, in perriod IV at the average water temperature o the lo owest feeding g rate was ob bserved in pe eriod IX at the e avera age water tem mperature of 1

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Effe ects off differrent fee ed amo ounts on the e grow wth perforrmance e of gillthead sea bream ((Sparu usaurata) in. At the e end of the sttudy, growth h differences swere not significantly y differed be etween the groups g (p>0..05) While th he final weig ght, relative growth rate, specific growth rate e, feed efficie ency and surrvival were not n significan ntly differentt (p>0.05), th here was a significant difference in i feed conv version rate between the groups (p p

Objectives
Methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call