Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effect of cycle period, ration level and repetitive cycling on the compensatory growth response in… Quinton, John Chadwick 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A6_7 Q56.pdf [ 5.89MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097557.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097557-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097557-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097557-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097557-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097557-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097557-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097557-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097557.ris

Full Text

T H E E F F E C T OF C Y C L E PERIOD, RATION L E V E L A N D REPETITIVE C Y C L I N G ON T H E C O M P E N S A T O R Y G R O W T H RESPONSE IN RAINBOW T R O U T , Richardson By JOHN C H A D W I C K QUINTON B.Sc,  The University of British Columbia,  1981  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF  SCIENCE  in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES D E P A R T M E N T OF Z O O L O G Y  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  T H E UNTVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A May  1989  © John Chadwick Quinton,  1989  OF  Salmo gairdneri  In  presenting  degree at the  this  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department  this thesis for or  by  his  or  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  representatives.  an advanced  Library shall make it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be her  for  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  &/o  rp  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  r  Abstract  The  Effect of Cycle Period,  Ration Level  and  Repetitive  Cycling  on  Salmo gairdneri  the Compensatory Growth Response in Rainbow Trout, Richardson  Compensatory normal  or  following (length level  growth control  a of  the  and  either  in  or  difference control week  evaluated  between  cycle  decrease  the  Three  period  in  twelve  controls  had  fed  analysis  of  complete  moisture, between  cycle.  and  the  Possible  controls  mechanisms  growth response are discussed. ii  on  cycle  the  gairdneri  period  of  growth  rate  was  and  no  a  were  continuous  ash  as  no  much showed  three  was  to  experimental thought  food. no  group the  fed  significant  cycling  underlying  a  ration  and  experimental  significant  using  increased  control  than  constantly  compared  twice  and  ration  Salmo  A  There  of  and  periods),  specific  There  protein  period  percentage  effect of  than  cycle  average  fish  weight  refeeding  periods)  trout,  than  of  were  weeks of  fat,  cycle  terms  in  fed  of  refeeding  periods.  only  more  effect  of  in  levels  average  groups after six or  differences  results  efficiency.  the  The  greater  adequate  experiments.  cycle  the  growth,  upon  rainbow  cyclically  and  been  in two  ration  conversion  differences  occurs  (repetition  length  week  rapid  following  in  better  and  two  group.  and  response  produced  of  undernutrition.  cycling  weight  one  phase which  starvation  growth  were  weeks  changes  of  repetitive  Richardson  the  growth,  period  compensatory  three  is  the  Carcass  significant after  one  compensatory  Table of Contents  Abstract  ii  Table of Contents  iii  List of Tables  iv  List of Figures  v  Acknowedgements  vi  Introduction  1  Early References  1  Recent Agricultural Work  3  Metabolic Energetics and the Compensatory Growth Response in Fish  10  Materials and Methods  23  Results  30  Discussion  57  Conclusions  64  References  66  Appendix  72  iii  List of Tables  Table I: Group Treatments for Experiments 1 and 2  27  Table II: Summary of Results of Experiment 1  31  Table HI: Summary of Results of Experiment 2  43  Table IV: Carcass Composition: Average Values (%)  47  Table V : Carcass Composition Changes in a 100 g Fish  56  iv  List of Figures  Fig. 1  Experimental Facilities at South Campus  25  Fig. 2  Group 1A  32  Fig. 3  Group IB  33  Fig. 4  Group 1C  34  Fig. 5  Group ID  35  Fig. 6  Group IE  36  Fig. 7  Group IF  37  Fig. 8  Average % Change in Weight, Experiment 1  38  Fig. 9  Average % Change in Length, Experiment 1  39  Fig. 10  Specific Growth Rate, Experiment 1  40  Fig. 11  Conversion Efficiency, Experiment 1  41  Fig. 12  Average Weight, Experiment 2  44  Fig. 13  Total Feed, Experiment 2  45  Fig. 14  Carcass Composition, Moisture  48  Fig. 15  Carcass Composition, Fat  49  Fig. 16  Carcass Composition, Protein  50  Fig. 17  Carcass Composition, Ash  51  Fig. 18  Carcass Composition, Dry Fat  52  Fig. 19  Carcass Composition, Dry Protein  53  Fig. 20  Carcass Composition, Dry Ash  54  Fig. 21  Average % Change in Carcass Composition  55  Fig. 22  Average % Change in Weight, Experiment 2  61  v  Acknowledgements  I  would like to  G.E.  Scudder  thank my  and the  supervisor,  Department  of  British Columbia for financial support.  vi  Dr. Robert Zoology  of  W. the  Blake and Dr University  of  Introduction  The purpose of this period,  ration  level  growth  response  Compensatory normal of  or  undernutrition of  week  cycle  repetitive  rainbow  growth  animals  length  and  in  control  study is to determine  is  a  growth a  (Dobson  and  the  starvation  trout,  phase rates  following  cycling  rapid  associated of  Holmes,  be three  the  compensatory  growth,  with  1984).  loss  Cycle  refeeding  weeks  greater  adequate  weight  and following  period would  on  of cycle  Salmo gairdneri Richardson.  of  period  the effect  than  refeeding  caused  period  periods.  of starvation  by  is A  the three  followed by  three weeks of feeding. The ration level is the amount of feed fed to  the  total  fish  body  expressed the  per day. This weight  of  in percent  cycles  of  is  calculated  all fish  in  body weight  starvation  and  an  as  a  percentage  experimental  group  per day. Repetitive refeeding  are  of the and is  cycling means  repeated,  alternating  periods of feeding with periods of starvation.  Early References  Compensatory since  the  turn  undernourished  growth  of  the  beef  normal mature  trait  for  starvation. given size  after  being  if  observed  Waters  adequately  size and weight.  animal  Osbourne  unrestricted  century.  steers,  reach  any  has been  subject  to  and Mendel  food, held  could at  a  (1908,  1909)  showed  that  fed,  could  recover  and  He felt  this was an essential  periods  of  (1915a,b) recover  constant  1  in agricultural animals  found  and weight  reach  undernutrition that  rats,  normal  for up to  or  when mature  500  days  with  restricted  1918)  showed  recover  permanent  Work  that  from  permanently  by  diet.  there  periods stunted  stunting  dietary  suggested  period  of  of  the  for  restriction  heifers  general  1000  the  but  restriction  found  increased  of  to  that  normal adult size. This idea was expressed he  defined compensatory  growth  human  balanced times in  children  diet  affected that  after  normal  height  by  mated  the other  decline  too  lactations  been  has  cattle  correlation  Those the  winter  in  and  adequately  weight  to  Children  showed  relative  given  normal  rate  also  (1954)  when  during  (1955)  and summer  recover  long  term  weight  the most  in  and summer  growth if  the  type  of  negative  of  pastured  over  when  noted  the  gains  weight  are  following  can  shown  be  showed  heifers  the  fed. Palsson  This  a  increase  can  Aitken  up  clearly  spring  a  up to a nine  times  restriction  severe. is  Brody  achieve  or tissue of an ariimal whose  too  This  following  required  occurs  made  which lost the  growth  Growth  which  nutritional  response  animals  most  organ  been  growth between  rate  are  by  not  months.  completely  any part,  compensatory  gained  is  severe.  at constant  1931).  and a four  Crichtion  growth  retarded  restriction  animals.  in  the  that generally has  stresses.  early  if  three  be  growth has been shown to occur  and Moore,  in weight  first  could  by Bohman (1955) when  a period of malnutrition  increase  in  the  (Sternes  to  as abnormally rapid growth  to age. This long term compensatory in  animals  et al, 1939).  rate  was proportional  for  too  held  (McCay  and Eckles,  growth  was  in rats  days  (Swett  tendency  undernutrition  was also  that  dairy  was a  if  restriction  (1927)  with  the winter  feed  became  plentiful (Black et al, 1940, Pearson-Hughs et al, 1955). In  their  review  of compensatory  2  growth  Wilson  and Osbourn  (1960)  state  that  undernutrition,  compensatory  is a  constant  growth,  feature  after  among  a  higher  period  animals.  of Their  conclusions are summarized below: i)  The  growth  rate  following  period  of undernutrition  is usually  enhanced. ii) Too severe restriction can cause permanent stunting, iii)  Five  main  factors  influence  the  extent  of  compensatory  growth: a) nature of restricted diet. b) degree of severity of restriction. c) length of restriction period. d) relative rate of maturity of the species. e) the pattern of refeeding. iv)  Recovery  from  protein  and/or  carbohydrate  restriction  is  usually complete. v)  The  rate  of  compensatory  growth  immediately  following  refeeding increases with severity of restriction, vi) The pattern of refeeding may effect the carcass composition, vii)  Recovery mature  may  weight  especially  when  occur  either  or by  by  prolonging  increasing  refeeding  growth  has just  the time to reach  rates  during  refeeding,  begun.  Recent Agricultural Work  There growth the  has been  a great  response of sheep  changes  in  body  deal  and cattle.  composition  growth  and attempts to describe  Meyer  and  Clawson's  of interest  1964  which  some study  3  Recent  in the work  has focused  accompany  of its underlying looked  at  compensatory on  compensatory mechanisms.  undernutrition  and  refeeding  in both rats  and sheep.  They  found  ration was about 52% of what was eaten Any to  less  resulted  weight  gains  decreased  in weight when  in size  loss,  during  and Osbourn (1960). Compensatory sheep.  The  total  compensating the  rats,  controls.  energy  when  There  content  levels  energy  was  between  was lower  the refed  in refed  gain  of the compensating  than  for the animals fed  was  no depression  refeeding, or  of  maintenance  sheep  were  levels less  difference  than  the  that of the  total  but the protein  in the controls. fat  of  in  sheep  was more  metabolic  rate  any increase efficiency  was largely  by Wilson  in both rats and  feed,  than  tract  The weight  and less  protein  ad libitum in both sheep and rats. There  the  Increased  finding  protein  and control  animals  nor was there  rats.  to  and  significant  in proportion  The alimentary  growth occurred  equal  no  level  contrary  content  given  was similar  this  starvation,  the maintenance  ad libitum in both animals.  which  fed above  that  undernutrition or  in appetite  of  responsible  during  food  in either  sheep  utilization  for the compensatory  above  growth in  both species. The  study  of  mature  sheep  body  composition  and efficiency  during loss and regain of live weight by Keenan et al (1969) gave different  results.  mobilized.  A  body  energy.  eight  weeks  the  energy  water  During  16% loss The sheep  weight of weight were  and then fed deficit  This  (1964)  who found  that  tissue  was inefficiently  in a 30% loss  maintained at the reduced  of total  weight for  ad libitum for five weeks. Only 75% of  content  contrasts  the  resulted  was recovered.  and low fat  sheep.  loss  with  The regained  compared the  results  the refed  4  sheep  to of  the  tissue  continuously  Meyers  has a  had a  high grown  and Clawson  greater  fat  content  than their controls. Walker  and Garrett  undernutrition intake  and examined  required  increased.  into  the  feeding  there  was an the  This  refeeding  effects  During  in the  period  male of  decreased  reduced  period.  increase  subjected  the  for maintenance  restriction  As  (1970)  rats  refeeding.  as  continued  of  the  The energy of food  level  restriction  efficiency  prolonged  the duration  maintenance both  to  continued  and  utilization  increased  refeeding  of  energy.  efficiency  of  utilization of energy declined to the level of the controls. McMannus et al (1972) examined compensatory six  month  gain)  was  followed the  old sheep. compared  Uninterrupted to  by refeeding  sheep  used  refeeding  compensating  undernutrition  for 52  the feed  they  were  growth  days  more less  27  (62.2%  efficient  animals drank more  for 58  for  efficiendy  growth in five to  days  gain). that  than  days  (36.2  (21.7%  During  water, ingested  more  loss)  restriction  the controls. the  %  During  controls.  The  food per unit  body weight, laid down less fat and more protein and retained more water. the  There thyroid  was no significant difference  in the THS output from  between  sheep  Compensating  sheep  the had  compensating significantly  lower  and plasma  the  somatotrophin  potency per unit body weight than the underfed sheep and activity  was  pituitary  gland  elaborated resulted per  detected.  With  decreased  somatotrophin. in  unit  hypertrophy  an body of  the  size  in  the  During anterior  undernutrition  but  Decrease  increase size.  in  severe  in  number  body  size  with  pituitary  5  the  cell  of  circulating  compensatory  enhanced synthesizing capacity.  no A C T H  not  ratio  gland  controls.  anterior and still  underfeeding somatotrophin  growth  there  and  evidence  was of  Little fat  in  and  sheep  during  and  refeeding.  per  unit  animals. water  (1975)  Refeeding the  empty sheep  had  body  and  the  weight  accumulated  fat from  the  growth  animals  continuously  loss of  studied  continuous  Restricted  wool-free  than  greater  Sandland  grown  distribution  of  after  restriction  feed  same  proportion  the  continuously  as  body  of  grown  less fat and  more protein  sheep.  was  There  subcutaneous deposits  than  a  from  fat  and  relatively the  body.  Deposition of fat on the skeleton continued during restriction. Weaner  sheep  intake  during  food during the  weight  first  In  efficiency lower. The to  of  the  was  The  maintenance.  Searle, 1975) basal  first  but  while  levels  of  less  recovery  the  was  higher  Nitrogen  utilization  as  was  rate  rose  than  that net  reduced during of  was  found  high to  the  energetic  requirements  intake  was  voluntary  rate  the  maintenance  efficiency  greater  metabolic  to  week  had  metabolic  suppressed  recovery  higher  gross  and  refeeding. The  stasis.  month  controls.  (Graham  were relative  be  more  efficient in the first two weeks of compensatory growth. The (Searle  body  and  protein,  Graham,  more  constantly  composition  fed  water  of the  weaner sheep was  1975). After weight and  controls.  equal With  fat  stasis  the  composition  partial  and  then examined sheep  compared  complete  had to  recovery  less the the  body composition was the same as the controls. In immature sheep (Drew and and  empty  changes  in  The  level  half  of  two  body  weight  body  composition  of the  body  (E.B.W.) loss similar  fat however  restriction  Reid,  period  of  to  did  and  1975  weeks of refeeding. Refed sheep at 45  6  25%  generally  reversal of  not  did  a,b,c) underfeeding  decrease not  normal during  increase  for  to  produced growth. the  first  the  first  kg E.B.W. contained more  protein  and water  These the  effects  refed  those  were  sheep  greater  were  continuously  carcasses  with  continuously  Upon  of  refeeding  returned water  from  was  a  of water  reach  45  sheep  46%  of bone  sheep.  Much  (Drew  kg E.B.W.  was  In  and bone water  early  and  a  to  loss of  regrowth  depression  there of  fat  from 30 to 40  and 1.08:1 in  rapid.  for continuously  the  rate  of  gain  in intake per day compared  of this  and Reid,  was 27%  water and  underfeeding  increase  than  ad libitum for either  to fat gain in sheep  a  lean  was due mostly  synthesis  sheep.  libitum produced  ad  fed  severe  with no increase  accumulation  70%  utilization.  for refed was  grown  and more  The reduction  loss  fed  and so the carcasses of fat  those  weight  of muscle  There  at  continuously  fat was rapidly mobilized  protein  was 2.23:1  the  less  during  and fat  of  continuously  to  fat  bone  refeeding  than sheep.  Initial  The ratio  sheep.  following  fed  the bone  the  E.B.W.  grown  Sheep  bone  stimulation  synthesis.  with  protein  to normal.  than  heavier  fed.  more  fat  in the carcass  fed and refed  accumulation  kg  and less  to  could be due to the rapid 1975c).  higher  The total  for the refed  feed cost sheep  than  those fed  ad libitum to the same E.B.W.. There was no significant  difference  between  normal  growth  and refeeding  in  efficiency  of  energy retention above maintenance. Rats growth  showed  response  a  significant  between  young  difference  in  and old animals  the  compensatory  (Miller  and Wise,  1976). Young refed animals were 39% more efficient and old animals were  21%  gross  energetic  the  old  continuously  more  refed  efficient efficiency animals  fed animals.  than the  the controls young  were This  refed  17%  in food animals  more  was probably  7  conversion. In were  efficient due to  29% and than  the  differences in  metabolism growth  between  was associated  adaptations  that  postulated due  the younger  to  that  with  gave  an increased  higher  a  higher  between  efficiency  animals.  food  efficiencies.  the difference  either  and older  uptake  Miller  young  of  The "catch up" and metabolic  and Wise  (1976)  and old animals was  synthesis  or  lower  metabolic  costs for the younger animals. Thornton growth  in  et  al  (1979)  was the first  sheep  to  incorporate  work  two periods  on  of  weight  refeeding on both immature (below 23 kg) and mature sheep. loss  Immature  of fat from  hypoplasia sheep  was  with  no  probably  mature  higher  was associated  protein  hypoplasia  in  of  higher of  fat  times  the food  as  great  digestibility  especially was  consumption  as  sheep  showed  which  were  reached  the  during  coefficient  and the live weight  the  gains  starved live  initial  in both  went  of  mature  loss  but only  This  difference  content the  of the  mature and  sheep.  The amount  control,  starved  or  the first few days of  sheep  starvation  atrophy and  was a proportionally  for  During the  fat  loss. The  was three  period.  from  The  53-68%  to  four  apparent  to 80-90%  were 500 to 600 g per day. The refed  protein, and  cells.  in mature  of  both  weight  similar  of the food  increased  same  (above 43 kg)  The meat  but there  refed sheep of the same body weight. refeeding,  cells.  adipose  the meat  carcass  with  during  the  loss  the offal, the  fat  the much  was from  from  adipose  in  The greatest  sheep  loss  increase  due to  sheep.  immature  the meat  an  loss and  were depleted of fat during weight  of the subcutaneous  showed  atrophy  of  sheep  compensatory  water  refed,  weights  and fat in their  either  as  once  the continuously  and were similar in body and meat composition.  8  or  meat.  Sheep  twice,  quickly  grown  animals  The  findings  equivocal carcass the  for  regarding  changes  composition.  results of  limited  numbers  differing  be  results  of  of  of  with  these  following  cost  of  This  may be a problem caused A l l of  periods  of weight  It  is  during  If  the period  made  in  overall  greater this  type  and reduced  maintenance  of weight  loss  and stasis  the  the effect  feeding  would  period had on the compensatory period for body weight showed  that  starvation fat  levels  body  would  composition  and refeeding  to  in the carcass and Reid,  produce  (Keenan  1975a,b,c,  in their  could stage.  Little  could  be manipulated to produce leaner  long  design.  outweigh Even  the  small be of  allow  for a  cumulative. on  a  the  could  would  The success  effect  starvation  The optimum cycle  altered  by  studies  pattern  of  and reduced  McMannus  and Sandland, carcasses  Some  the  protein  et al, 1969,  Drew  fairly  the gains  increased  1972,  9  design of the  was shortened,  being  be  of  by the energy  to be determined.  can  The  important.  growth response. have  under  become  time  depend  on  advantages  fed controls  cycle  true  et al, 1979).  stasis  phase  constantly  the  used  costs  starvation  The reduced  of cycles, of  growth  than  the  studies  weight  although  refeeding.  (Thornton  that  greater  and  is outweighed  examined  and  composition  that  are  experiments  by the experimental  previously  during  that  suggest  body  are  sheep  appetite  suggests  restriction  restriction  compensatory  rate,  separate  variable  period  importance.  number  during  loss  costs  increase  economic  of  this  the  maintenance  the  from  restriction  in  possibly  studies  rapid  studies.  they  result  the  maintenance  metabolic  nutritional  of  growth  et al (1979)  can  animals  many  growth  basal  reconciled,  which  conditions  conclusions  in  Thornton  cannot  variety  compensatory  et  1975).  al,  This  in meat producing  animals. Compensatory of  livestock  al, 1979). effects  production  Studies  of  lost  to  cattle  the  faster  Supplemental  benefits  of  pastoral  to stock  feeding  in  to the farmer  compensatory  gains  than  were  in  that  the  those  except  but may also and  show  winter  which had  important  winter,  on the  which overwinter on  heavily  in the spring gains  (Thornton et  together  weight  factor  et al (1970)  sheep  lost  economic  zones  by Bennett  important  Compensatory  not only expensive  an important  and  which  weight  weight.  management. is  as those  Animals  gain  less  such  already  Australia's  growth is very  pasture.  tended  is  in  grazing  compensatory poor  growth  for  for  herd  survival,  deprive  greater  pasture  in  agricultural  him of use the  following spring. The  existence  of  compensatory  growth  animals  has been known and noted for a long time. In some areas it is of fundamental nutrition, the  economic  the  extent  importance  understanding  that  it  is  of  not  while its  in  others,  mechanisms  presently  possible  such  as  sheep  is  incomplete  to  to  incorporate  it  into agricultural practices.  Metabolic Energetics and The Compensatory Growth Response in Fish  In examine done energy Cho energy  order their  on  to  examine  metabolic  the  and  et al (1982) is  energetics.  nutrition  partitioning  the  compensatory  of  basis  A great  salmonids.  feeding  and Jobling of  growth  study (1983).  the  study  10  deal  in fish,  we must  of work  has been  Two excellent techniques  reviews are  The utilization of  fish  on  available, of  nutrition.  dietary The  metabolizable as  new  gross its  energy  tissue  energy  heat  17.2  is  the  IE.  (RE)  0  (ME) the  (IE)  is  is  equal  energy the  product  The  standard  for  protein  23.4  kJ/g,  kJ/g.  The  to  is  ash  content  digestible  energy  used  fuel.  be  feed  as  components  of  a  of  made  up of both undigested food (FE)  the  corrected  as  are  the  energy  is  IE  consumption  and  carbohydrates kJ/g  thus  (FE)  affect  the  and unreabsorbed  -  for  digested  The  =  is  and  greatly  is  digested.  Thus apparent digestible energy  digestible  The  energy  loss  retained  (HE).  39.2  can  not  heat  for is  feed  fecal  energy  food  fat  is  value  body origin (FmE).  the  value  (DE)  which  of  for  The  to  dissipated  combustion.  The  absorbed  and  intake  of  kJ/g,  ash  intake  and  energy  feces  are  residues  of  IE - F E while  (FE-FmE).  The  major  loss  of ingested gross energy has been found to be fecal energy loss. Metabolizable energy acids,  fatty  acids  and  (ME) is the energy sugars  to  be  used  of the less  the  the catabolism of the amino acids. The excretion form loss  of of  urea  is  a  loss  of  ammonia through the  digestible  energy  of  the  diet  combustible  is  an  or  by-products  of  of ammonia in the  energy  gills (ZE)  absorbed amino  for  the  kidney (VE)  overestimate  of  its  fish.  The  means  the  fuel  value  to the fish. Thus : M E = I E - ( F E + V E + ZE) The  loss  digestibility interaction The level  loss and  influenced  of of  combustible the  between of  energy  feed the  the  in  components. diet  through  digestibility by  energy  of  proportion  the  feces  There  components the  gills  the of  other  appears that  and  protein  in  urine  on  to  affect  be  the little  absorption.  depends  on  the  diet.  This  is  the  components  especially the level and type of fat (Cho et al, 1982).  11  depends  in  the  diet,  The The  metabolizable  metabolic  liberated. tissue,  rate  Heat  tissue  rate  is  the  the  structure  energy  is  the  the  fish  is  by  the  of  is  produced  turnover  and  minimum and  rate  of  function  metabolic  rate.  increase  in  metabolic  rate  Growth  is  food.  the  total  basal  metabolism  involuntary  the  However  (HeE),  the  heat  feeding.  The  quantity  of  deamination  then  produced  by  often  the  more  digestion the  on  water  use  as  an  on  temperature.  energy  increment  is  and  is  greater  (HcE)  glands. heat  increment quality  cost a  of  of and  protein  major  factor  the  heat  can be 8%  to  12%  of IE in fish. The heat increment is quite small  to  the  metabolic  basis  of  is  the  post-absorptive  food,  SDA  especially  work  to  plus  the  protein  form proteins  contradictory  formation  rich  ratio  It  heat  nitrogen  loss.  12  is  amino  regarding of  however. process  from  excretory  information  physical/mechanical  food.  and fats of  work  the The  heat  or  to  compared  The  and action  the  the  is  contributing  when  feeding.  the  growth.  the  as  The  source  of  for  of  heat  depends  is  dynamic  work  the  activity  maintenance  defined  food,  sustain  of  (ME)  specific  chemical  SDA  to  homeotherms  broadly  of  of  and  The  into  digestion  for  is  metabolic  feeding  food  required in  food  available  from  energy  (HjE).  duration  for  The  of  fish.  heat  basal  ingestion,  not  energy  activity  for  food  the  of  form  increment  thermoregulation  S D A is  required  is  the  needed  Any  by  to  which  The  activity  fish.  caused  if  loss.  resting  is  energy  heat  activity.  heat  energy  only possible  than  (SDA)  This  at  transformation  the  The  available  rate  metabolic  of  the  of  the  physical  increases  utilization  energy  increment  The physiological  related  mainly acids  to the  metabolic  and fatty  products. biochemical variety  ingested  of  acids,  There to results  is the is  regarded and  to  be  changes  in  temperature increase the  due  on  to  activity the  al, 1978a,b).  The  rainbow  increased  trout  as  the  measured  the  3  to  is  for  Atlantic  than  for  either  Cho  salmon  and 1 0 ° C when heat production doubled. From 10 to  was  no  finclings basal  further of  other  These  researchers  metabolic  effect  in heat production and from increase.  results  discussed  or  Slinger  7.5  increase  and lake  (1980)  weighing from 47  The largest  occurred  15  earlier  which  to  between  15°C there  to 2 0 ° C  strongly  of  (Smith et  brook  and  An  doubling  g at 7.5,  a 50%  and 2 0 ° C .  a  rates  increased.  of  marked.  139  was  15  in  effect  and rainbow trout  heat production of rainbow trout 10,  techniques  The  very  1 8 ° C resulted  slowly  temperature  experimental  production  production more  in  et al, 1982).  Atlantic salmon  heat  water  (Cho  heat  from  heat production of  differences  levels  fasting  in temperature  trout  the  there  support  the  suggest  that  rate  and  maintenance  costs  increase  with  metabolism  has  traditionally  been  calculated  temperature. Basal extrapolation  of  activity  levels  back  to  zero.  rate for rainbow trout was found to be 59 for for  96  to  .85  145g to  equation  trout  57g  relating  (Cho et al, 1975)  trout the  (Smith  body  et  weight  to  The  to 63  basal  metabolic  kJ/kg/day at 1 5 ° C  and 54  to  al, 1978a,b). heat  by  139  kJ/kg/day  The  following  production  for  rainbow  trout of 1 to 59g body weight is proposed (Smith et al, 1978a,b). Heat Production(kJ/kg/day) = 204 W ° This  relation  coefficient area rather  of  between body  than  heat  weight  body weight  J 5  production  would may  metabolism.  13  appear be  the  (r=0.92) and  to  the  indicate  important  fractional that  factor  surface in basal  Growth  and  energy  retention  energy  not  dissipated  as new tissue.  This  retained  metabolizable body  protein.  As fish  energy of  increase  is stored  fat  balance  of  amino  amount  by  greater  available which  excess  retained  as  Proteins  of  of  as  fat  increases  to  an overall  protein  As  the  a  increase  retention.  increased intake  total  retention  from  (Cho et al, 1982). protein  in  retention  importance fish,  energy  value If  promote  there of  increases  is  a  it  is  the  proportion energy  the  and the  the  proportion  Increasing  of the  protein  biological  but the  total  retained  levels  lead  fat and in the fat to protein  Temperature  A n increase  energy  maximum  rate.  as fat or  the  exceeds  excess  increases  in both  dietary  greater  energy  greater  of  the  in the  proportion  et al, 1982). a  of  retained  The relative  intake  higher  intake  deposition  at  the  energy  (Cho  (Cho et al, 1982).  energy  higher  maturity  in  of  energy  protein.  amount  but  up  may be stored  a  the  acids  made  heat  energy  on  dietary  deposition  marginal  ration  the  heat.  protein  is  as fat (Cho et al, 1982). depends  as  as  in maturity  and protein  expended  (RE)  has  been  temperature  44  to  Watanabe and an  58%  found  to  affect  7.5  to  20°C  from of  digestible  et al (1979) optimum  found  protein/fat  energy that the  ration  was  achieved with a diet of 35% protein and 15 to 20% fat. A  number  efficiency. the  with  The  of  found  that  increasing  increased  other  The stocking  variability  (1977)  of  of  density  the  levels routine  influence  for a  growth  density  exercise  variance  the  factors  rate  metabolic and  of rate  attributed  and  growth  farmed  group  the  fish.  of  rainbow  this  to  Li  higher  levels  metabolism,  growth  rate  of fish  affect  and Brocksen trout  i)  iii)  14  and conversion  increased  starvation, of  ii)  excitation.  and consumption  rate  increased  dominant  with  trout  grew  lipid  content  at  less  benefits  than  showed and  that  the  High  feed  due to  faster  at  production,  levels  ones.  weight  rate  with  densities  gain  higher gave  et al (1981)  per cubic  increased  a  dominance  Trezeviatowski  all  may produce  competition. The  efficiently  At higher  lower  conversion  intraspecific  and more  all densities.  fish  stocking  density,  with  meter  of water  stock  densities.  pollution problems  however  (Clark  et al, 1985). The genetic difficult  to  factors  component  assess  as  which  tend  to  that  the  suggest  lipid  different  are  viable.  They  also  performance  must  be  results  confounded  found  that  genetic  heritability  for  individual that  a  combination  genetic  is  and  that  higher  any  greater  of  fingerlings not  of family  be  et al (1979) trout  that  than  weight  very  of  than  low,  stock's or  the  (1980)  weight  but  length. The  suggesting  efficient.  and individual  a  Refstie for  be  programs  conditions  factors.  was  can  breeding  evaluation  length for  environmental  Ayles  production  for  to  rainbow  environmental  much  would  of  under  by  sensitive  effects.  strains  suggest  growth  so  content  done  is  selection  are  between  heritability  variability  trout mask  significantly  are  of growth rate and body composition is  They  selection  that  suggest  would  likely  give some improvement in growth rate. Muscle Three (Gill  different  plays  muscle  an important types  have  role been  in compensatory histochemically  et al, 1982, Hoyle et al, 1986): white,  muscle  constitutes  musculature. has  growth  reduced  It  the  functions myoglobin  greater  portion  anaerobically and  during  mitochondrial  15  growth. identified  red and pink. of  the  White  swimming  contraction  and so  content,  increased  glycolytic 1986).  content  Red muscle  cross is  enzyme  section  geared  mitochondrial highly  occurs  as  the  skin  below  for  and is  aerobic  content,  vascularized  a  less thin  which  metabolism more  lipid  (Hoyle  et  vascularized  (Hoyle  superficial layer parallels  with and  a  the  al, 1986).  al,  of triangular  lateral  higher  lipolytic  et  line.  It  myoglobin and  enzymes Pink  and is  muscle  has  intermediate properties. White myotomal muscle forms the bulk of the market portion of the  fish.  The growth  Weatherly faster  dynamics  et al (1979)  when  fed  groups  grew  growth  of  increase  in mean  increase  resulted  fibre  diameter  trout,  which  than  those  muscle from  to  increased  in trout  fish  those  muscle fibre  length a  rainbow  diameter,  was examined by  trout.  The fish  larger  than  even  1980a work Weatherly  though  lowest  most  grew  to  largest  fish.  In  the bulk  fastest  add  The  by an  The ratio  of  growing  new  fibres  diameter  range  cm but small fibres  the  12°C.  of  number.  for the  ability  at  characterized  slowly. The fibre  18  in  ration  was  in fibre  was  growing more  numbers  mass  greater  fish muscle growth was more their  fibre  on a restricted  the increases  indicated  to  dimMshing  for yearling  myotomal  compared  muscle  ad libitum at 1 2 ° C than at 1 6 ° C and that both  faster the  of  persisted in  slower  growing  influenced by mean fibre diameter. In  et al examined  the relationship between  mosaic muscle fibres and size in rainbow trout form 2.1 to 61.3 cm fork length (FL). In trout <  5 cm all the muscle fibres were < 40  Lim in diameter. From 5 to 20 cm the fibres were all in the 0 to 39.9  nm diameter  muscle  bulk  fibres. At >  class though the range  increased  mainly  by  the  was extended. recruitment  of  The mosaic new small  20 cm the mode of the muscle fibre diameter  16  was in  the  40  to  79.9  the  subsequent  very  little  due  to  um  class.  Larger  overall  until  50  increases  diameter  cm.  in  fibres  The  fibre  frequency  increase  diameter  the  continued  of  new  fibres  ceased  and  diameter  of the  existing  fibres. This  limit  on  recruitment  fish  size.  of  In  appeared,(  small  in  but  fingerling  was  mass  largely  At  were  due  was  gains  place  (Weatherly  of  recruitment  the  to  partly  result  the  to  but  changed  the  55cm  would seem trout  lOOum),  distribution  muscle  fibres.  increases  >  in  an upper  1980b)  2.3  to  5cm no fibres were > 40am but at > 5cm fibres of > 40nm appeared, ranging up to 100  um. Trout 5 to 18 cm were dominated by fibres <  40 Jim, in the 20 to 39.9 was a  true for  marked  class.  fish  with either  decrease in the  Differences  inference,  in  protein  did  to the 40  to 59.9  trout.  by  increase gains  in  diameter. had  of  new  larger trout  growing fibres  ultimate with  (Weatherly  in the dry  affect  0  the  There  was  19.9  um  to  weight  and,  fibre  cm the fibre diameter  in  the  decreased.  Fish  This  of with  fibre  rapid  diameter a  the  to  greater  growing  minnow 1984)  muscle  very  indicated  faster  Between  the  Comparison of  bluntnose Gill,  small number of large  area  smaller  fish.  size.  and  factor,  rates.  from  diameter  mode shifted  fibres up to  120  um class was further reduced. Above 20 cm the  cross-sectional  fibre  growth  fibres  significantly  to 20  There were a  ad libitum) slower  18  fibre recruitment  in  of  condition  not  slow  |im. This  um class in most growth rate groups and hatchery  um and the 0 to 19.9 growth  fast or  number  the  frequency. In trout of  reared  urn class with nothing above 100  fish growth  20  and  was  25  due  growth fish  and  mainly  rates  length  rate  of a  cm  to  (12°C,  ratios  than  recruitment  potential  dynamics  the  for  of rainbow  (Pimephales notatus Rafinesque)  concluded  17  that  the  main  mechanism  of  myotomal fibre  growth  in large  while for small  fast  slow  growing fish  growing fish  was the input of new  increase  in fibre  diameter  was of greater relative significance. During as  the  Smith, there  starvation  energy  different  source  (Denton  1981, Weatherly are  tissues  differential  and  are  utilized  Yousef,  1976,  sequentially Elliott,  and Gill,  1981, Black and Love,  rates  mobilization  of  of  1975,  1986) and  similar  substrates  in different organs (Love, 1980). Red and  muscle  Goldspink,  muscle  is  starvation in  is less  1984).  2.5  a  muscle  the  of  greater  types  synthesis  red muscle  is  eight  Significant  halved  during  weeks  1975,  in  Weatherly  and  rate  Goldspink,  1984).  was  relatively the  reduced  synthetic  source  adipose  fat  rate  first  1984).  The  week  not  rate  is  activity  during  (Weatherly  In  while  occur  short  above  normal and  with  (Loughna  the  to  the rate  of  and  term  starvation 1981)  seven  the  (Loughna  and  degradation  in  rates rates  1984). The  reduced  Goldspink,  or  1976, Elliott,  degradation  both  (Loughna  18  of  starvation  and Goldspink,  related  and Gill,  that  for  prolonged  synthesis  values  rates  The white  and its mean  two weeks  does  slightly  protein  synthesis  halved (Loughna and Goldspink,  1981).  only  of red  Prolonged  of  starvation  After  utilization  Gill,  synthesis  and  energy  the  is also  constant  exceeding  concentration  the  white.  Salmo gairdneri (Denton and Yousef,  degradation  reach  in  during  unchanged.  protein  of  and Goldspink,  quickly  white (Loughna  of synthesis  that  decrease  very  synthesis in the red muscle 1984).  than  (Loughna  remains  than  fractional rate  significant  muscle tissue responds rate  by starvation  The mean  times  causes  both  affected  1984).  RNA The  S. gairdneri is  and muscle  lipid  (Parker  and  Vanstone,  1966,  with  water  liver  glycogen  Love,  1986).  (Idler  Smith,  1981)  and Bitners,  and white Full  growth  rates  are  1981;  Weatherly and Gill,  1959).  muscle  recovery  high  which  is  In  Gadus morhua liver lipid,  glycogen  from  possible  proportionally replaced  short  are  term  (Bilton  utilized  (Black and  starvation  and Robins,  and very  1973;  Smith,  1981; Dobson and Holmes, 1984; Kinkschi,  1988). If  the  recovery to  starvation  upon refeeding does  constantly  occur,  1970; Love,  gut  to  upon  utilize  atrophy  the  of  results  of  intestine as  Goldspink,  fish  The fish  the  is  a  point  (Bilton  lost.  High  mortality  and Robins,  and Robins,  1973)  Weatherly  especially  1973, Moon,  studies  have  McCay  et al, 1939;  in  the  1980).  in  produced  similar Wilson  muscle  and Johnston,  results  (Swett  and Osbourn,  and  section term  and diameter is  then  Johnston  and  1980). Mammalian  and  1960;  by  1981)  Long  tissue  1981,  Love,  reduced  middle  weight  (Johnston,  1983, Moon  the  to  because the  Gill,  1980).  length,  White  source  full  begins  1973;  is  and  (Cyprinus carpio: Love,  energy  which  and the ability to catch up  (Bilton  microvilli,  (Love,  past  may be unable to recover  in decreases  the  is  not occur  (Salmo gairdneri:  starvation  utilized  there  refeeding  feed  intestine  the  control  1980).  reabsorption of  fed  especially  ability  continues  Eckles,  Thornton  1918, et  al,  1979). The  presence  of compensatory  documented  than  the  of starving  effects  sockeye four  salmon  weeks  for mammals.  Bilton  in fish  is far less  well  and Robbins (1973) examined  and feeding on the survival and growth of  fry. The fry were  of starvation  growth  with less  19  capable  of withstanding three to  than  10% mortality  a  but many  were  incapable  mortality  increased  mortality increase  was after  offered food. weeks  of  sharply  similar 30  due  skeletal  Beyond  to 90%  in  days.  all  at  four  weeks  seven  experimental  The mortality  of  starvation  weeks.  The pattern of  groups  with  a  sharp  continued when the fish  were  The length and weight of the fry starved up to seven  decreased  been  recovery.  significantly.  to  system.  The decrease  reabsorption There  of  in  cartilaginous  was an accelerated  length  may  have  material  from  the  growth  rate  among  some  groups of fish which survived to the end of the eight week feeding period  following  starvation.  one to three weeks group  when  efficiently.  caught  fed. It  Survivors  appeared of  catch  weight.  Starvation  of  sockeye  fry  reaching  had  not  three  weeks,  up up  been  inhibited  that  four  did not  which  fish  which  were  starved  from  up in length and weight to the control  feeding  from  Those  weeks  to  the  to  three  the  size  starved. the  these  fry's  fry  utilized  starvation controls  in  weeks of  and  eight  either  did not  others  in  more weeks  length  or  prevent  the  the population  Prolonged  starvation,  ability  utilize  to  feed  longer  than  feed  when  the  offered and resulted in permanent stunting or death. Weatherly and  subsequent  3 weeks  weight long  loss).  rations those  in  on  The visceral  the  produced of  of  the  term long  restricted  the  starvation  rations  for  and starved  term  groups.  group.  rates  with  that  respect  20  starvation  rainbow 16  utilized  The gut  Subsequent were to  trout  response  (Salmo  weeks,  starved  for 16 weeks (32.5%  fat was completely  growth controls  compared fingerling  (14.5% weight loss)  and short  reduced  (1981)  recovery  Richardson)  gairdneri for  and Gill  in both the  was significantly recovery  approximately wet  body  at equal  weight  full to and  condition  factor.  percent  dry  weight.  This  and dry  The  weight,  recovery  heart,  indicated  week  starved  group.  This  group  liver,  an  carcass weight  fish gonad  and  overcompensative  were  less  than in the  indicated  surpassed  that  gut  in the  slow  and  response. controls  reduced ration  the  the  controls  in  visceral  fat  The  gut,  skin  and in the  three  and severely  growth  from  starved  limited  rations  resembled severe starvation rather than short term starvation. Dobson and  and  feeding  Fish  were  Holmes  in  farmed  divided  weeks then  examined  rainbow  into  starved  (1984)  three  trout  groups:  for three weeks;  weeks then fed for three weeks; constantly pelleted of  for trout  body  The  fish  food  at  Thus  of  fish  fed)  was  much  gain  Comparison  group  was  group  period. The  The  gain  fed  equal or  of  feeding overall  for  three  for three  all  fed Omega  level  repeated weight  gain  when  than  the  of  starved.  subgroup  control,  gained as  weight showed by for  gain a a  B  group C.  though fed to  significant  starvation  the  much weight  prior  period  5%  five times.  weeks of the experiment,  gain  of  showed that in four of  weight  preceded  weight  Richardson).  starved  were  was lost  greater  starvation is  fed  recommended  and  Comparison of  after  was  fish  then fed for three weeks  feed.  if  A  B  experiment  percentage  six  starvation  and group C, the control, was fed  when  total  of  gairdneri  manufacturer's  day.  effects  (Salmo  subgroups with controls  starved  weight  weight  the  fed throughout the  as  with  week  weight  the  then  as fish  per  gained  periods  (starved  half  six  weight  Comparisons five  the  the  starvation  increase  in  of  starvation.  and  refeeding  with the weight gain for the first three weeks of group A (feeding only) greater  shows  the  mean  than  that  of  weight  gain  feeding only  21  for  for  starvation  three  weeks.  and  feeding  Length  is  changes  were  measured  greater  overall  indicated were as  that  length  associated growth  and  weight  weight  just  data  was  then  loss  than  fat  presented  the  and  showed  This  starvation be  or  comparing  produced  starving.  could  deposits  (B) with  starvation  refeeding and  after  in length gut  and  feeding  made  fed group  during  starving  gains  increases  not  no  that  increases  with  the starved  for  showed  the  Unfortunately of  and  period  considered  water  uptake.  the length  increases  the controls  (C). Figures  a  in the rate  reduction  of weight loss over the three week period. The  experiments performed  effect  of  different  feeding  levels  short  and  repetitive  response  and  the  compares  the  average  the  conversion  fed  control  carcass  starvation cycles  and  with  on  and  refeeding  periods,  the  compensatory  growth  composition.  percentage  efficiency group  here were designed to determine the  The  increases  specific  in  growth  experimental  first  experiment  weight rate  groups.  and  of a  These  length,  constantly experimental  groups were starved then fed for one, two or three week cycles or were  starved  then  fed  for three  weeks  cycles  at  ration  levels  higher or lower than the control. The increases growth  second in weight rate  experimental week  experiment  of group  periods.  and the  from  analyzed  for moisture,  at three  was  both  weeks  the  fed  starved  level control  average  efficiency  control then  was  the  and  fat, protein, and  the  conversion  constantly  ration  Samples  start,  length,  which  The  compares  and  at six weeks  and  group  specific  with  the  fed for alternate  three  same  for both  experimental ash  groups  composition  in order  groups. were at the  to determine if  the compensatory growth response altered carcass composition.  22  percentage  Materials and Methods  Rainbow the  Sun  Valley  delivered  to  Columbia.  the  The  Fig.  1.  tanks  eight  Trout  Farm  Animal  Care  control  service  of  Mission,  Centre  feet  and  flushing.  a  Water  University,  (Triton  140 A  gallons  per  thiosulfate  minute)  injection  continuous  injection  water  supplied to  was  filters to  pump)  to  remove  system  was  to  the  British in  fibreglass  with a  sleeve  to  supplied with  and  shown  circular  central improve  from  hot  the  water  to  1 4 ° C and run through  two  model  used  of  is  in depth  particulate  further  tanks  in  mixed  large  charcoal  facilities  was  12  Columbia  University  standpipe  maintain a constant temperature of activated  the  performed  and four  level  the  of  British  experimental  were  water and  of  the  in diameter  circulation  general  of  experiments  feet  to  Salmo gairdneri Richardson were purchased from  layout  The  standpipe water  trout,  TR-140,  matter  and  (Mec-o-matic reduce  through  chlorine.  Powermatic  chlorine  aerator  capacity  bars  levels.  II The  mounted  on  the sides of the tanks to insure normal dissolved oxygen levels. For  the  first  range:  9.5  to  19.1  were  acclimated  experiment cm,  for  a  experimental  groups  as  tank  placed  in  and  weight: two  fish  mean: week  follows. a  the  (length:  36.24 g,  mean: range: 10  period  and  were  netted  Fish  temperature  then  2-phenoxy-ethanol  (0.4  ml  Laboratories,  Vancouver,  Once  anesthetized,  removed from the anesthetic, weighed  23  (Mettler  per  balance,  to  cm,  110  divided  from  controlled  containing  B.C.).  13.27  into  the holding  anesthetic litre, the  g)  tank Syndel  fish  P1200  ±  were  Figure 1: Legend A:  Hot Water  B:  Cold Water  C:  Air Compressor  D:  Carbon Filter  E:  Thiosulphate Injection System  F:  Air Line  G:  Water Line  H:  Experimental Tanks  I:  Water Supply Valves  J:  Air Supply Valves  K:  Tank Drains  L:  Gutter  Scale: 1/4" =  1.0'  24  25  0.01  gm.),  measured  then  compared  for  to  a  individually  numbered  Washington,  U.S.A.)  standard  steel  length  rule  fingerling sutured  (±  using  0.5  tags  through  calipers  cm),  (Floy the  and Tag  dorsal  which  were  tagged  with  Co.,  Seattle,  musculature  just  posterior to the dorsal fin. Following fish  were  total  of  are  measurement  placed 40  fish  in  one  in  each  of  of  each  returning  tank,  them  recovery  six  their  the  anesthetic  tanks.  group.  Groups were  anesthetizing  to  from  experimental  experimental  summarized in Table I.  out  and  The  There group  were  measuring  experimental  them  groups.  All  a  treatments  sampled by netting  and  the  10  fish  and  then  groups  sampled once per week for the six week duration of the  were  experiment  (Appendix). Experiment  2  cm, weight: mean: those  in  out  of  and  fingerling  (length:  mean:  18.98cm,  120.22 g, range:42 to  experiment the  length  fish  1.  Shortly  holding  tank,  after  189  with  to  g) were treated  arrival  anesthetized,  range: 13.3  the  fish  measured  weight  and  tagged  the  tags. They  were  then divided into two  22.5  as per  were for  individually  taken  standard numbered  groups of  50  fish  each. The treatments of the two groups are summarized in Table I. The length and weight of five fish from the holding tank were recorded, stored were length  in  then  these  the  sampled were  fish  freezer at  (Bel-Par  three  recorded  were  for  week each  killed  and  Industries, intervals, fish  in  weeks 15 fish were sampled from each tank ,  26  immediately -20^  tag  C).  number,  the  sample.  five  of  frozen Both  groups  weight After  which  and  were  and three  Table I: Group Treatments for Experiments 1 and 2  Group  Cycle P e r i o d  Ration Level  1A  Constant  5%  IB  1 Week  5%  1C  2 Weeks  5%  ID  3 Weeks  3%  IE  3 Weeks  5%  IF  3 Weeks  7%  2A  Constant  5%  2B  3 Weeks  5%  27  killed,  frozen  were  sampled,  percentage the  25  B.C.;  and stored. five  of  Official  24.009  of which  moisture,  frozen  Analytical  fat,  samples Methods  Chemists,  (ash)  After  six weeks were  killed,  protein,  (General of  and 24.027  and  of  ash  24.003  (protein  as  from  each  tank  and stored. The  were  assessed  Laboratories,  the  #  fish  frozen  Testing  Analysis  Tests  30  Vancouver,  Association  (moisture),  nitrogen)).  for  of  Official  24.005  The groups  (fat), were  sampled again after 9, 12, 15 and 18 weeks (Appendix). All  groups  of fish  Clarke Extruded  were fed once per day when  New Age Salmon Feed  of appropriate  fed. Moore size was the  feed used. The tag number, experiments  were  weight  and length  recorded  and the  of each fish average  sampled in both  percentage  changes in  weight, length and condition factor were calculated as :  Average % Weight Change = ^ 1 - ^ ^ — i  x  100 j  Average % L e n g t h Change = I |  -  x  -  L  -s- n  lOoJ  + n  r (W / L ^ M W . / L ) = Z * * — * t (W./Lf)  . 100 + n >  3  Average % C o n d i t i o n Factor (Black a n d Love, 1986) Where length, samples. (S.G.R.)  W  o  L^  is is  sample initial  Conversion and percentage  weight,  W- is  length  and  efficiency average  initial I  n  (C.E.), change  also calculated.  28  is  weight, number specific  in body  L  c  S  of  is  sample  individual  growth composition  rate were  Conversion E f f i c i e n c y  =  Z F  S p e c i f i c Growth Rate (%/  d a y)  =  % Average Change in B o d y C o m p o s i t i o n  where  F  is  initial  weight,  food fed per T  is  the  day,  time  is in days,  the  I  =  final  C^ is  C./n - iC/n  weight,  the  final  is  x  the  composition  and C i s the initial composition. Non average  parametric percentage  statistical change  analysis data  analysis of variance by ranks, Zar, 1984).  29  is  used  to  (Kruskal-Wallis  examine single  the factor  100  Results  The results individual as  for experiment  measurements  are  the  The changes  groups  1A through  for  group  E,  weeks were resulted  of  group  differences  0.074) >  0.11)(Fig.  greater  2B  each  than  0.05)  the of  first  1.  and  and length for  then  supply six  fed for three  to  IE  is  variance  percentage length growth  the tank. The  weeks  of  the  and are  The average  groups  of the controls  II).  The greatest  values  not increase  pattern  weeks  for group  that  second  substituted  percentage  shown  in  showed  change  Fig.  8  A  no  significant  change  in weight  (q=11.0346,  (q  10.0122,  rate  =  (q =  but  of weight  while  those  a(75  8.78718,  differences  of  between  efficiency  (Table  2,  IB were  higher  than  except  The trend in groups  9)  weight  weight  d.f.)  >  a(75 d.f.)  10) though the average values for ID, IE and IF are  in the conversion  (Fig.  that  and specific  seen  did  to  the  (Fig. 8),  (Table  group  three  in the water  of  less  fed  for  for  analysis  (Fig. 9)  in  (Fig.6) due to a mechanical breakdown which  in the average  d.f.) >  percentage  for experiment  for  Kruskal-Wallis  cc(75  starved  was identical  weight  change  in appendix 1  IF are shown in Figs. 2 through 7. The results  those  the results  are found  percentage  in average  anomolous  experiment  in  for  in an interruption  treatment  into  of all the samples  calculations  length.  1 are summarized in Table II. The  IB  and 1C are  the  Fig. 11). that  groups  are  A l l cyclicly  of the controls.  ID, IE and IF was that increased ration level  percentage decreased loss  change  in weight  conversion  and gain  during  (Fig. 8)  efficiency starvation  (Fig.  or 11).  The  and refeeding is  shown for group ID in Fig. 5. There is a significant difference in  30  length  Table U : Summary of Results of Experiment 1 Group  %  change weight  % change length  % change cond. fact.  conver. effic.  spec, gr rate  1A  18.68  3.69  2.92  0.074  0.407  IB  7.99  3.50  -4.26  0.069  0.183  IC  7.61  3.65  -3.66  0.108  0.175  ID  27.24  7.36  2.46  0.527  0.571  IE  27.91  6.59  4.58  0.299  0.583  IF  24.91  6.04  8.42  0.188  0.527  31  Figure  2  Group 1A  4)  CJl  c o  £  o  K o> cn o i_  4)  3  14  21  28  Time (Doys) (771  Weight  IXXI  Length  35  Figure  3  Group 1B 8 7 6 -  5 -  3 2 -  r  1 0  •4 ~  II  1  4 -  0  1  -5 •6  I  0.5  2  1.5 IZ71  -nr 2.5 Weight  -  ~~r~  ~ r  3  3.5  Time (Weeks) (XXI  4  Length  4.5  5  5.5  6  Average  I  o cn  I  I  I  I  %  Change  I  C T ) t r i > O J r O - ' 0 - » r O O J - N t r i 0 1 > J C O  J  i  L  i  I  I  I  I  L  A  3  3 ro  -  f ID  ro  3 a  ? o  04  -  cn  ST  m m  w w w \  3 ID  cn cn cn cn ZZ1  34  s °>  Average %  Change  Average %  37  Change  Figure  8  Average % Change in Weight  1A  IB  1C  1D Group  1E  1F  Figure  10  Specific Growth Rote 0.6 - i  a. K  1A  IB  IC  10 Group  1E  1F  Figure  11  Conversion Efficiency 0.6 -i  1A  1B  1C  1D Group  1E  1F  the  average percentage weight change  d.f.)<0.05).  The  starvation  is  continues  during  the  first  typical  groups  of  there  is of the same  order  3,4,5,7). eight  4,5,7). IE,  increases week  period  refeeding  It  IF,  percent, is  during  Figs.  5,7)  in weight  period  is  a  30.1266, tx(45  first  a  reduced  moderate  found  of  rate. In  increase eight  in  percent.  in all experimental  groups  ID, and IF  that  greatest  efficiency  loss  week  week  growth  of  the second  the third the  week  The weight  approximately  during  and specific  the conversion  groups.  as that  typical  the  but at  of  The gain  (q =  during  all experimental  gain  approximately (Figs.  loss  weight  (Figs.  ID,  of  percentage  gain  weight  the starvation  week  average This  large  with time  rate  1C, of  is  refeeding average  occur.  for group  (groups  percentage  Over  D  also  this one  (Fig 5) was  1.289 and the specific growth rate was 4.04 percent per day. The The  average  groups in  results  weights  are shown  the means  three weeks =  of the second  a(58  fed 230 % more group d.f.)  (t  0.04)  significant  =  1.89186, a  are shown in Table HI.  (2A) and experimental  There  is no significance  0.975837,  a  (100  but after  difference  (t  though  than  refeeding =  difference  d.f.) >0.33),  the control  feed (Fig. 13). After nine weeks smaller  (2B)  after  (29 d.f.) >0.07) or after six weeks (t  d.f.) >0.72)  was significantly <  the control  in Fig. 12.  initially  (t =  -0.36416,  of  experiment  the control  (12  0.786878,  weeks) a(29  (t  group  had been  the experimental =  there  2.1933,  a(21  was again no  d.f.) >  0.43)  and the  control had been fed 264 % more feed (Fig. 13). At weeks 15 and 18 the  control  group  was significantly  group ( t = 3.87415,  a  heavier  than  the  experimental  (28 d.f.) < .001; t = 3.67697, a  < 0.001 respectively) but 294% more feed. The differences  42  (32 d.f.)  in the  Table UJ: Summary of Results for Experiment 2  wk  wt .(%chg) 2A 2B  In. (%chg) 2A 2B  con.fac. 2A 2B  C.E. 2A 2B  3  16.7  -11.2  2.9  0.2  4.7  -11.6  0.16  6  39 .5  27.9  7.3  6.6  8.3  4.6  0.17  9  118 .6  17.1 18.9  7.2  26.2  -5.4  0.32  12  165 .2  102.3 28.1  18.6  22.0  20.7  0.27  15  207 . 6  64.8 36.5  19.1  16.5  -2.8  0.24  18  254 .6  123.7 42.9  24.9  18.2  14.1  0.21  S.G.R. 2A 2B 1.05  0.30  0.72  0.67  1.06 0.47  0.98  0.81  0.98 0.32  0.90  0.61  Figure  12  Average Weight 450  1  400 -  Vs  350 300 -  3  \  250 -  V,  200  31  150 100 -  50 -  2^: 12  ZZ}  Time (Weeks) 2A  K3  2B  15  18  amount  fed  are  reflected  in  the  greater  conversion  efficiencies  of  the experimental group (Table HI).  IV  The  carcass  and  Figs.  occurred  in  composition 14  the  analysis  through  samples  20.  taken  The  after  experimental  group had been starved  experimental  group  a(8  d.f.)  <0.02)  <0.005) (Fig. 15).  After  the  control  percentage large  was  19)  six  and  and lower  weeks  and  there  change  changes  in  were  in  changes  composition  of  a  fat  no  =  3.21,  -3.96,  a(8  group  (Table  starvation  the  mainly  of  water  protein  (2.19  V). This  weight (6.86  g).  In  loss g)  < (Fig.  The  21)  illustrates  starvation. to  These  calculate in  each  three  fish  gained  water,  g  is  fat  fish  is  5.62  control 2.16  group  39.10  and 11.60  g is fat and only 1.43  feed than  the  experimental  that the  following  6.02 g  of  weeks  during the  amounts three  of  week  the  control  ,  and  weeks  of  g  is  protein.  After  six  which 7.28  received  per day feeding level for both groups).  46  (based  on 5%  g)  period  which  26.88g weeks  g  of  consists  (2.09  feeding  weight  after  in weight for  fat  in  of  body  group  g  heavier  the  three  experimental  the  average  g is protein at a cost of 134.3 fish  d.f.)  average  trout  and equal  the  experimental  in  a(8  0.05.  a  after  shows  -2.92,  d.f.)<0.02) (Fig  six weeks of growth at the average percentage change each  (t=  at  used  initially,  group fed. The  moisture  (t  the  between  then  g  differences  differences  with  100  in  Table  significant  content  were  groups  =  composition  hypothetical  experimental  (t  in  during which  control  protein  groups  carcass  weeks  higher  dry  shown  significant  and the  in fat  experimental  percentage  and  14),  are  only  three  significantly  (Fig.  results  is  and the is the  water, g more  body weight  Table IV: Carcass Composition: Average Values (%) Week  Group  M o i sture  Fat  Protein  Ash  other  Total  0  i nitial  71.24  8.54  17.20  2.02  1.00  100  3  2A 2B  70.51 72.50  10.22 7.26  16.40 16.90  2.22 2.44  0.65 0.90  100 100  6  2A 2B  70.64 71.36  10.20 9.44  16.12 16.44  2.40 2.38  0.64 0.38  100 100  47  Figure  14  Moisture  ZZl  Time (Weeks) 2A  E l  2B  % Wet  49  Weight  Figure Dry Fat  35  18  Figure  19  Dry Protein  70  T  —  X  Dry W e i g h t  55  Table V : Changes in a 100 g fish Week  Group  Moisture  Fat  Protein  0  Initial  71.24  8.54  17.20  2.02  1.00  100.0  3  2A 2B  82.29 64.38  11.93 6.45  19.14 15.01  2.59 2.17  0.76 0.80  116.7 88.8  6  2A 2B  98.54 91.26  14.23 12.07  22.49 21.03  3.35 3.04  0.89 0.49  139.5 127.9  56  Ash  Other  Total  Discussion Experiment on  the C.G.R..  percentage  (Fig.  11)  the  =  level.  not  comparable  Elliott,  shows  that  during  carcass  muscle used  et  here  of  protein Weatherly  they  effect  rate  1987,  were  fed  the  (0.407 fed  to  (Elliott, show  IV  visceral  and Gill,  V,  1981;  Bitners,  than  As  those  (Denton  and  1981)  although  57  as  the  Goldspink, 1  occurs  by Dobson and due  starvation  to  the  continues  the  in fat and an increase This  Weatherly  replacement 1959). required  changes  in  loss  reflects  and muscle  Yousef,  half  Experiment  probably  Fig.21).  deposits  and the  and  shorter  utilization  fat  is  a decrease  and  Smith,  (Idler  1972).  and  weight  loss  initial  a  % per day)  satiation.  greatest  the  as well if  groups  Davidson  large  1982)  at  fed for  This  al,  efficiencies  significant  constantly  Laurent,  higher  cyclically fed groups,  as was found  gut  gains,  conversion  were  growth  other  starvation,  1966,  are  9)  of starvation  the  lipids  better  statistically  though  which  (Tables  Vanstone,  Jezoerska  great  ID, IE and IF did at least  composition results  of  (Fig.  week  the  moisture  and  specific  and  during  of  utilization and  that  length  not  controls  1975)  (1984).  emptying  were  group's  to  the first  Holmes  in  the  (Houlihan  1977,  period has a  or the two other  Thus groups  than  and 10)  the control  The control  literature  the cycle  8)  (Fig.  differences  better  long.  (Fig.  rates  than  though  that  Groups ID, IE and IF all showed greater average  growth  0.05  shows  weight  specific  is  1  lipids  and with  The to  the  (Parker  Gill,  1981,  water  of the  starvation  periods  initiate  1976,  significant  Elliott,  in the metabolic  1975, rate  of  the  muscle  (Loughna reduced  Goldspink,  during  moderate  1984).  physiological  This  periods  starvation  for  One  factors  reduction  tissue  which  weight  In  term  1981,  period  increases  utilize  the  muscle (Moon with  refeeding  period  synthesis  rate  may  as  (Groups be  decreased synthesis  the  IB, result  sufficiently.  the  both  in  the  fish's  rate  are  Goldspink,  an  energy  C.G.R.  would  allowing  1C, Table of  the  The  II)  protein  three  rates  to  week  to fall  58  in source  The very  high  more  protein shorter  facilitate  a  turnover  rate  period  1980,  growth  during the but  the  to  be  starvation  greater  could  but not be long  to  through  low  the  synthesis  order  remained  of  rate is  starvation  if  much  inability  the  be possible  rate  body  (Love,  As  tissue  1980).  wet  and the  increases  as  muscle  turnover  reduced  1984).  rate is  white  total  rate  The  efficiency.  metabolic  The protein  degradation  degradation  and degradation  rate  of  1984).  drops  the basal  turnover  the  increased, growth.  and determining the  degradation  the  may be the  1984).  and Johnston,  the  metabolism  and  1980, Loughna and Goldspink,  percent  and  Loughna  is  levels  starvation  the  associated  periods  70  Loughna  gluconeogenesis  retained  protein  rate  and conversion  rate  in reducing  by two factors, short  growth  turnover  1981,  C.G.R.  begins  and activity  and Goldspink,  Smith,  rates  the  comprises  (Loughna  determined rate.  of  (Smith,  metabolic  starvation  protein  the  maximal  1970, Love,  after  in protein  underlying  are reduced (Love,  the  The  starvation  the basal  of the main  shortly  1984).  reduction  mechanism  cycle  Upon  occur  and  Goldspink,  ideal  tissues  not  C.G.R. having  allow  the  enough to  cause  the  degradation  energy  source  in  degradation  the  from  the  rapid  growth  diameter  al,  1980a,b,  rates  in  period the  trout  be is  last  Weatherly  and  are  lower  muscle  tissue  growth  fish  epaxial  muscle  to  basal  the  metabolic  homeotherms  lower  energy  (Smith,  demands  fibres,  a  not  rates  on  poikilothermic  as  In  This  the  increasing  Weatherly  is  1981).  mammals  known.  et  synthetic  and  (Smith,  During  the  protein  synthesis  the  recovery for  to  1979,  The  rise  through  opposed al,  an  This  mechanics is  mammalian  yet  full  achieved  as  protein  not  1981).  The  et  is  which  1984).  1981).  than  at  normally  than  demands  Gill,  refeeding  Gill,  of  lower  and  (Weatherly  proportion in  of  muscle  ones  protein  possible.  is  existing  much  the  point  not  week  small  as  the  growth  new of  rise  Weatherly  may  rapid  of  to  1981,  rate  in  trout  recruitment the  (Smith,  starvation  rainbow  rate  a  greater  retained  is  due fish  as  to  the  compared  starvation  fish  have  they  not  maintain  do  much a  constant b o d y temperature different than the e n v i r o n m e n t . The  effect  of  ration  levels  used  ration  levels  greater  had  was  This  indicates  overfed.  to  washed  not  possible  for  these  on  these  than  three  percent  that  fish  the  is  supported  some  out to  of  of the  the tanks  quantitatively  experiments.  All  the  C.G.R.  experiments.  conversion  that  was  in  level  decrease  This  experiment  ration  fed  The  of  by feed  the  and  the  groups  were  59  higher  higher  collected  measure  only  this fed  at  II,  Fig.  11).  made  during  the  level  outflow. the  their  that day  levels  ration  the  per  ration  with all  at  effect  weight  (Table  observations in  minimal  body  efficiency at  is  were the groups It  setup ration  was used  at  one  time  once  per day. This  and  decrease  digestion the  even  (Wurtsbaugh seven  residence  (Jobling,  day  1981).  If  greater  reduce  starvation,  the  feeding  1977).  and  were  to  be  spread  may  throughout  of  possible  greater  and, the  C.G.R.  the  effect  than  longer  the  1972).  assimilation  the  during  be  (Elliott,  increase to  may  rate  reduction  of the gut  efficiency  periods  evacuation  contribute  filling  efficiencies  Starvation  the  rate  in rapid assimilation  conversion  greater  refeeding  result and  the gastric  evacuation  during  time  and Davis,  days  reduced  would  by  This  efficiency  making  more  energy available from the feed consumed. The on  the  C.G.R..  growth the  second  rate  first  experiment  shows  The control  group  and conversion experiment group  showed  during  three  refeeding  Ul,  the  Fig.  reduced This  reflected the  experimental affected period  A  other great  last  when  three  groups.  because  average  not  significantly  of  weights  period  of  different  the control after  six  the  group  the final  literature.  system  the  was week  twelve  occurs  weeks  even thought the control had received 230% more feed at six  60  Table severely  experiment. efficiency  more  and experimental or  weight  control  of  in  The  58.9%,  of the  growth  specific  percentage  the  both  cycles  control  and conversion  for  the compensatory  high  85.2%,  in  growth  during  the  two weeks  experimental  occurred  to  in average  breakdown  repetitive  very  in  (39.1%,  the last  week  The  it  most  The  gains  in the reduced  a  compared  sources  periods  mechanical  water quality during  is  during  22).  efficiency  and  experimental  showed  of  and  severely  the feeding (Figs.  5,7).  groups  were  (Fig. weeks  12)  F i g u r e 22 Weight 260  -i  and  260% more  conversion and  feed at  efficiency  the average  conversion first  increased  percentage  efficiency  (Table  12 weeks  UJ).  from  the first  increase  were  greater  This  (Fig. 13). The growth cycle  in weight during  indicates  to  the  the  and length  the third  that  rate and  and the  cycle  C.G.R.  second  than the  may  increase  with repetitive cycling. The 21)  carcass  show  that  experimental protein more the  composition there  and  or  ash.  protein  is  control  analysis no  significant  fish  after  The experimental  and less  compensatory  fat  than  growth  (Tables  six  response  V , Figs.  difference weeks  group the  IY,  in  tended  controls. does  to  between  the  moisture,  fat,  to  have  This  not  14  slightly  indicates  affect  the  that tissue  qualities of the fish. The can  effect  of fish  size  on the compensatory  be inferred by comparing experiment  growth  1 and the first  of experiment 2. The average fish size in experiment while that for experiment their  growth  the  results  experiment may in  rate for  2  increase larger  period serve  is  fish.  1  The  probably the  determine  the  scales  experiment  the growth  as  rate  (Brett,  very  period  inversely  rate  effect  of  before fish  Houlihan  for  the  performance.  as well  source  with  1979, and  similar  determined  energy  six weeks  1 was 36.24 g  2 was 120.22 g. As fish increase  declines  show  response  fish  during  size  62  6  weeks  Compensatory  on  amount  the  protein  first  1986) but of  growth  as the conversion efficiency size  by the  et al,  in size  the of  starvation  utilization  (Wurtsbaugh  optimal  lipid  present  period occurs.  cycle to  and so Metabolic  and Davis,  1977).  Since  the  metabolic  utilization rate  it  is  of  fat  probable  reserves that  is  proportional  cycle  period  indicate  that  scales  to  the  with  fish  size. The  results  presented  growth response  can  fish  with  to  fed  daily  commercial  saving  in  feed  here  be utilized to far  less  aquaculture cost,  the  Application  operations  could  operating  farms (Dr. F. Ming, Pers.Comm).  63  compensatory  grow fish of comparable  feed.  major  the  lead  of to  expense  these a of  size to  techniques considerable most  fish  Conclusions  The experiments achieved The  with less  cycle  higher  than  period  average  is  half the feed  critical.  percentage  24.91%) than either two  show that equal or better growth rates can be  (7.61%) week  The three  changes  the control cycles.  through  (  in  compensatory  week  cycles  weight  growth.  gave  (27.24%,  much  27.91%,  18.68%) or the one (7.99%) and  The results  for average percentage  change  in length and specific growth rate show the same pattern. Most of the compensatory  growth occurred in the last  the three week feeding period. Group cycle  period  level,  produced  conversion  and a a  ID, which had a three week  three  percent  of body  specific  growth  rate  efficiency  of  1.23  during  week of  weight  of over  the last  per day ration  four  week  percent  at a  of its feeding  period. The body  weight  ration 3%,  ration  levels  tested,  three,  per day, did not affect  levels  only  decreased  the  five  and seven  the growth  conversion  percent  rate.  of  The higher  efficiency  (0.527  for  0.299 for 5% and 0.188 for 7%). This indicates that groups fed  at greater than 3% were overfed. There of  were  the control  no significant  and experimental  differences groups  between  after  feed respectively.  significantly  heavier  After eighteen than  the  weeks  experimental  weights  six and twelve  though the control group had been fed 230 percent more  average  weeks  and 264 percent  the control group  group was  but  it  had  received 294 percent more feed. Carcass  composition  analysis  64  of  moisture,  protein,  fat and  ash  show  that compensatory  growth  has  no  significant effect on  the  overall body composition after a complete cycle.  rate  The  effect  and  conversion  starvation  of  and in  varying  the  refeeding  periods  this  area  to  examined degradation determine  should  by  growth of  if muscle  on  increase  refeeding  been the  long  the  period  effect  of  when  increased  growth  falls  compensatory changes growth.  occurs  through  to  control  growth in  Histological new  longer rate  due The  also  be  synthesis studies  and to  fibre recruitment  increasing diameter of existing fibres would also be worthwhile.  65  Further  levels.  should  protein  the  independently  including  the  growth if  enough.  periods,  rate  the  to  refeeding  compensatory growth  is  the  have  focus  and  determining  during  during  detennine  mechanisms  growth  periods  starvation  compensatory  underlying  efficiency  refeeding  research  to  compensatory  or  References Ayles,  G.B., Bernard, D . and Hendzel, M . (1979). Genetic differences in lipid and dry matter content between strains of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and their hybrids. Aquaculture 18, 253-262.  Bennett,  D . , Morley, F.H.W., Clark, K . W . and Dudzinski, M . L . (1970). The effect of raising cattle and sheep together. Aust. J. Exp. Aiiim. Husb. 10, 694-709.  Bilton,  H . T . and Robins, G . L . (1973). The effects of starvation and subsequent feeding on survival and growth of Fulton channel sockeye salmon fry (Oncorhynchus nerka). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 30, 1-5.  Black,  D . and Love, R . M . (1986). The sequential mobilization and restoration of energy reserves in tissues of Atlantic cod during starvation and refeeding. J. Comp. Physiol B. 156, 469-479.  Black,  W . H . , Queensberry, J.R. and Baker, A . L . (1940). Wintering steers on different planes of nutrition from weaning to 2 1/2 years of age. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dept. agric. 667, 20pp.  Bohman,  V.R. (1955). Compensatory growth of beef effect of hay maturity. J. Anim. Sci. 14, 249-255.  cattle:  the  Brett,  J.R. (1979). Environmental factors and growth. Pages 599-677 in W.S. Hoar, D J . Randall, and J.R. Brett, eds. Fish physiology. 8. Academic Press, New York.  Brody,  S.  (1927). Growth and development, with special reference to domestic animals. Res. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. 103, 40 pp.  Cho,  C . Y . and Slinger, S.J. (1980). Effect of water temperature on energy utilization in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). in L . E . Mount, ed. Proc. 8th Symp. on Energy Metabolism, Cambridge, U . K . pp287-291. Butterworth. London.  Cho,  C . Y . , Bayley, H.S. and Slinger, S.J. (1975). A n automated fish resperometer for nutrition studies. Proc. 28th Ann. Meeting of Can Conf. for Fish Res. Vancouver, B . C .  Cho,  C . Y . , Slinger, S.J. and Bayley, H.S. (1982). Bioenergetics of salmonid fishes: energy intake, expenditure and productivity. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 73B, 25-41.  Clarke,  E.R., Harman, J.P. and Forster, J.R.M. (1985). Production of metabolic and waste products by intensively farmed rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson. J. Fish Biol. 27, 381-393.  66  Crichton,  J.A. and Aitken, J.N. (1954). The economical dairy heifers. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 13, 10-37.  Davison,  W and Goldspink, G . (1977). The effect of prolonged exercise on the lateral musculature of the brown trout (Salmo trutta). J. exp. Biol. 70, 1-12.  Denton,  rearing  of  J.E. and Yousef, M . K . (1976). Body composition and organ weights of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. J. Fish Biol. 8, 489-499.  Dobson,  S.H. and Holmes, R.M.(1984). Compensatory rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson. J. 25, 649-656.  growth in Fish Biol.  Drew, K.R. and Reid, J.T. (1975a). Compensatory growth in immature sheep. I. The effects of weight loss and realimetation on the whole body composition. J. Agric. Sci. 85, 193-204. Drew, K.R. and Reid, J.T. (1975b). Compensatory growth in iinmature sheep. JJ. Some changes in the physical and chemical composition of sheep half-carcass following feed restriction and realimentation. J. Agric. Sci. 85, 205-213. Drew,  K.R. and Reid, J.T. (1975c). Compensatory growth in immmature sheep. III. Feed utilization by sheep subjected to feed deprivation followed by reahmentation. J. Agric. Sci. 85, 215-220.  Elliott,  J . M . (1972). Rates of gastric evacuation Salmo trutta L . Freshwat. Biol. 2, 1-18.  Elliott,  J . M . (1975). The growth rate of the brown trout, Salmo trutta L . fed on maximum rations. J. Anim. Ecology 44, 805-821.  Gill,  in  brown  trout,  H.S., Weatherly, A . H . and Bhesania, T . (1982). Histochemical characterization of myotomal muscle in the bluntnose minnow, Pimphales notatus Rafinesque. J. Fish Biol. 21, 205-214.  Graham,  N.McC. and Searle, T . W . (1975). Studies of weaner sheep during and after a period of weight stasis. I. Energy and nitrogen utilization. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 26, 343-353.  Houlihan,  D . F . , McMillan, D . N . and Laurent, P. (1986). Growth rates, protein synthesis, and protein degradation rates in rainbow trout: effects of body size. Physiol. Zool. 59, 482-493.  Houlihan,  D . F . and Laurent, P. (1987). Effects training on the performance, growth,  67  of and  exercise protein  turnover of rainbow trout (Salmo Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44, 1614-1621. Hoyle,  Idler,  J.,  gairdneri).  Can. J.  Gill, H.S. and Weatherly, A . H . (1986). Histochemical characterization of myotomal muscle in the grass pickerel, Esox americanus vermiculatus (LeSeuer), and the muskellunge, E. masquinongy (Mitchell). J. Fish Biol. 28, 393-401.  D.R. and Bitners, I. (1959). Biochemical studies on sockeye salmon during spawning migration. V . Cholesterol, fat, protein and water in die body of the standard fish. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 16, 235-241.  Jezoerska,  B., Hazel, J.R. and Gerking, S.D. (1982). mobilization during starvation in the rainbow Salmo gairdneri Richardson, with attention to acids. J. Fish Biol. 21, 681-692.  Lipid trout, fatty  Jobling,  M . (1981). Mathematical models of gastric emptying and the estimation of daily rates of food consumption for fish. J. Fish Biol. 19, 245-257.  Jobling,  M . (1983). A short review and critique of methodology used in fish growth and nutrition studies. J. Fish Biol. 23, 685-703.  Johnston,  I. A. (1981). Quantitative analysis of muscle breakdown during starvation in the marine flatfish Pleuronectes platessa. Cell Tissue Res. 214, 369-386.  Johnston,  L A . and Goldspink, G . (1973). Some effects of prolonged starvation on the metabolism of the red and white myotomal muscles of the plaice Pleuronectes platessa. Mar. Biol. 19, 348-353.  Keenan, D . M . , McMannus, W.R. and Frur, M . (1969). Changes in body composition and efficiency of mature sheep during loss and regain of live weight. J. Agric. Sci. 72, 139-147. Kindschi,  Li,  G . A . (1988). Effect of intermittent rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Fish. Mgt. 19, 213-215.  feeding on growth of Richardson. Aquacult.  H . W . and R.W. Brocksen (1977). Approaches to the analysis of energetic costs of mtraspecific competition for space by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). J. Fish Biol. 11, 329-341.  Little,  Loughna,  D . A . and Sandland, R.L. (1975). Studies on the distribution of the body fat in sheep during continuous growth and following nutrition restriction and rehabilitation. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 26, 363-374. P.T. and Goldspink,  G . (1984).  68  The effects  of  starvation  upon protein turnover in red and white myotomal muscle of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson. J. Fish Biol. 25, 223-230. Love,  R . M . (1970). The Chemical Biology of Fishes. Academic London, New York.  Love,  R . M . (1980). The Chemical Press, London, New York.  McCay,  Miller,  of Fishes,  2.  Academic  C M . , Maynard, L . A . , Sperling, G . and Barnes, L . L . (1939). Retarded growth, lifespan, ultimate body size and age changes in the albino rat after feeding diets restricted in calories. J. Nutr. 18, 1-14.  McManus, Meyer,  Biology  Press,  W.R., Reid, J.T. and Donaldson, L . E . (1972). Studies of compensatory growth in sheep. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 79, 1-12. J.H. and Clawson, W . T . (1964). Undernutrition and subsequent realimentation in rats and sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 23, 214-224.  D.S. and Wise, A . (1976). The energetics growth. Nutr. Metabol. 20, 125-134.  of  "catch up"  Moon,  T . W . (1983). Changes in tissue ion contents ultrastructure of food-deprived immature American Anguilla rostrata (LeSueur). Can. J. Zool. 61, 812-821.  Moon,  T . W . and Johnston, L A . (1980). Starvation and the activities of glycolytic and gluconeogenic enzymes in skeletal muscles and liver of the plaice, Pleuronectes platessa. J. Comp. Physiol. 136, 31-38.  Osborne,  Osborne, Palsson, Parker,  T . B . and Mendel, L . B . (1915a). after long continued failure to 439-454.  The resumption of growth grow. J. biol. Chem. 23,  T . B . and Mendel, L . B . (1915b). Protein maintenance. J. biol. Chem. 21, 241-257. (1955). Progress in the physiology ch. 10. London: Butterworths.  of  farm  minima  for  animals,  JJ,  R.R. and Vanstone, W . E . (1966). Changes in chemical composition of central British Columbia pink salmon during early sea life. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 23, 1353-1384.  Pearson-Hughes, G . , Alder, overwintering of 145-157. Refstie,  and eels,  F . E . and Redford, R . A . (1955). The beef steers. Emp. J. exp. Agric. 23,  T. (1980). Genetic and environmental variations in body length and weight of  69  sources of rainbow trout  fingerlings. Aquaculture 19, 351-357. Searle,  T . W . and Graham, N.McC. (1975). Studies of weaner during and after a period of weight stasis. II. composition. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 26, 355-361.  sheep Body  Smith,  M.A.K. (1981). Estimation of growth potential by measurement of protein synthetic rates in feeding and fasting rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson. J. Fish Biol. 19, 213-220.  Smith,  R.R., Rumsey, G . L . and Scott, M . L . (1978a). Net energy maintenance requirements of salmonids as measured by direct calorimetry: effect of body size and environmental temperature. J. Nutr. 108, 1017-1024.  Smith,  R.R., Rumsey, G . L . and Scott, M . L . (1978b). Heat increment associated with dietary protein, fat and carbohydrate and complete diets in salmonids: comparative energetic efficiency. J. Nutr. 108, 1025-1032.  Stearns,  Swett,  G . and More, D.L.R. (1931). Growth in height and weight and retention of nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus during recovery from severe malnutrition. Amer. J. Dis. Child. 42, 774-780. W.W. and Eckles, C . H . (1918). Some factors influencing the rate of growth and the size of dairy heifers at maturity. Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. 31, 56pp.  Thornton,  R.F., Hood, Compensatory 135-151.  R . L . , Jones, P.N. and Re, V . M . (1979). growth in sheep. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 30,  Trzebiatowski, R., Filipiak, J. and Jakubowski, R. (1981). Effect of stock density on growth and survival of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri Rich.). Aquaculture 22, 289-295. Walker,  J.J. and Garrett, W . N . (1970). Shifts in the energy metabolism of male rats during their adaption to prolonged undernutrition and during their subsequent realimentation. in A . Shurch and C. Wenk, eds,Proc. 5th Symp. E.A.A.P.; Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals.  Watanabe,  T . Takeuchi, T . and Ogino, C. (1979). Studies on the sparing effect of lipids on dietary protein in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Proc. World Symp. on Finfish Nutrition and Fishfeed Technology. Hamburg, Germany. 1, 113-125.  Waters, H.J. (1908). The capacity of animals to grow under adverse conditions. 29th Proc. Soc. Prom, agric. Sci., N . Y . p. 71 Waters,  H.J. (1909).  The influence  70  of nutrition  upon  animal  form.  30th Proc. Soc. Prom, agric. Sci., N.Y. p.70. Weatherly,  A . H . and Gill, H.S. (1981). Recovery growth following periods of restricted rations and starvation in rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri Richardson. J. Fish Biol. 18, 195-208.  Weatherly,  A . H . and Gill, H.S. (1984). Growth dynamics of white myotomal muscle fibres in the bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Rafinesque and comparison with rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson. J. Fish Biol. 25, 13-24.  Weatherly,  A . H . , Gill, H.S. and Rogers, S.C. (1979). Growth dymamics of muscle fibres, dry weight and condition in relation to somatic growth rate in yearling rainbow trout {Salmo gairdneri). Can. J. Zool. 57, 2385-2392.  Weatherly,  A . H . , H.S. Gill and S.C. Rogers (1980a). The relation between mosaic muscle fibres and size in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). J. Fish Biol. 17, 603-610.  Weatherly,  Wilson,  A . H . , H.S. Gill and S.C. Rogers (1980b). Growth dynamics of mosaic muscle fibres in fingerling rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) in relation to somatic growth rate. Can. J. Zool. 58, 1535-1541. P.N. and Osbourne, D . F . (1960). Compensatory growth after undernutrition in mammals and birds. Biol. Rev. Camb. Phil. Soc. 37, 324-363.  Wurtsbaugh, W . A . and Davis, G . E . (1977). Effects of fish size and ration level on the growth and food conversion efficiency of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson. J. Fish Biol. 11, 99-104. Zar,  J.H. (1984). Biostatistical Analysis, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 718pp.  71  Second  Edition,  Appendix:  Original  Data  Group 1A/ I n i t i a l Dec. 6, 1987 Tag  Values  W e i g h t L e n g t h New 236 242 243 288 292 297 200 201 202 204 205 206 207 209 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 223 224 225 227 228 230 250 251 254 258 259 260 262 263 267 268 282 318  avg sum count feed  36.15 17.81 27.4 22.83 18.8 17.85 21.8 17.65 46.83 24.74 45.4 44.68 32.43 19.45 28.08 60.71 30.91 26.3 30.9 21.23 12.05 58.79 37.94 30.1 25.58 29.16 13.45 24.85 48.75 18.7 19.43 28.28 12.91 31.75 33.5 26.52 12.98 36.3 38.8 28.59  13 .8 10 .8 12 .8 12 .1 11 .3 10 .6 11 .7 10 .7 13 .8 12 .5 14 .2 15 .1 13 .8 11 .1 13 15 13 .3 12 .8 13 .4 12 9 .8 16 .3 14 .1 13 .7 12 .8 13 10 .4 11 .9 15 .1 10 .9 10 .8 13 .2 9 .5 13 .2 13 .9 12 .7 10 .2 14 14 .6 15 .1  Tag  469  515  458  236  28.301 12.414 1160.3 40 58.019 g/day  72  Group 1A, Samples  Sample 1, Dec. 10, 1987 Tag  200 214 215 216 217 225 228 258 268 288  initial sample 21.8 21.5 26.3 25.98 30.9 30.14 21.42 21.23 12.05 12.51 25.58 25.71 13.45 13.88 28.28 29.22 36.3 36.15 22.83 23.13 23.891  % initial sample -1.37614 11.7 11.7 -1.21673 12.8 12.3 -2.45954 13.4 13.4 -0.88702 12 12.1 3.817427 9.8 9.65 0.508209 12.8 12.7 3.197026 10.4 10.45 3.323903 13.2 12.8 -0.41322 14 14 1.314060 12.1 12.1  23.945 0.580795  12.22  %  0 -3.90625 0 0.833333 -1.53061 -0.78125 0.480769 -3.03030 0 0  12.12 -0.79343  Sample 2, Dec. 11 Tag  211 214 216 217 223 228 258 260 268 288  initial sample 28.08 27.84 26.3 26.55 21.42 21.31 12.05 12.95 37.94 38.34 13.45 13.5 28.28 28.61 31.75 31.58 36.3 36.29 22.83 21.35 25.84  % initail sample % -0.85470 13 12.7 -2.30769 0.950570 12.8 12.5 -2.34375 -0.51353 12 12 0 7.468879 9.8 9.8 0 1.054296 14.1 13.6 -3.54609 0.371747 10.4 10.4 0 1.166902 13.2 12.7 -3.78787 -0.53543 13.2 13.2 0 -0.02754 14 13.9 -0.71428 -6.48269 12.1 12.1 0  25.832 0.259847  12.46  12.29 -1.26997  Sample 3, Dec. 14 Tag  204 214 217 224 227 228 258 260 267 268  initial sample 24.74 24.17 26.3 25.7 12.05 12.28 30.1 30.4 29.16 28.61 13.45 13.47 28.28 28.13 31.75 31.16 12.98 12.88 36.3 35.78 24.511  % initial sample -2.30396 12.5 12.6 -2.28136 12.8 12.6 1.908713 9.8 9.8 0.996677 13.7 13.5 -1.88614 13 12.7 0.148698 10.4 10.4 -0.53041 13.2 12.8 -1.85826 13.2 13.2 -0.77041 10.2 10.3 -1.43250 14 13.9  24.258 -0.80089  73  12.28  %  0.8 -1.5625 0 -1.45985 -2.30769 0 -3.03030 0 0.980392 -0.71428  12.18 -0.72942  Sample 4, Dec. 15 Tag  200 204 207 212 228 258 260 262 267 268  initial sample 21.8 20.38 24.74 24.62 32.43 32.22 60.71 67.79 13.45 13.31 28.28 27.92 31.04 31.75 33.5 33.82 12.71 12.98 36.3 35.63 29.594  %  -6.51376 -0.48504 -0.64754 11.66199 -1.04089 -1.27298 -2.23622 0.955223 -2.08012 -1.84573  29.944 -0.35050  initial sample % 11.8 11.7 0.854700 12.5 12.5 0 13.8 13.4 -2.89855 15 14.9 -0.66666 10.4 10.5 0.961538 13.2 13 -1.51515 13.2 13.3 0.757575 13.9 13.8 -0.71942 10.2 10.4 1.960784 14 14 0 12.79  12.76 -0.12651  Sample 5/ Dec. 17 Tag  214 215 216 217 223 225 227 258 262 268  initial sample 26.3 25.58 30.9 30.39 21.23 20.46 12.05 12.06 37.94 36.43 25.58 24.78 29.16 28.32 28.28 27.84 33.5 33.96 36.3 35.7 28.124  % chg initial % chg sample -2.73764 12.8 12.7 -0.78125 13.4 -1.65048 13.3 -0.74626 -3.62694 12 12 0 0.082987 9.8 9.7 -1.02040 -3.97996 14.1 13.8 -2.12765 -3.12744 12.8 12.8 0 -2.88065 13 12.9 -0.76923 13.2 -1.55586 12.9 -2.27272 1.373134 13.9 13.8 -0.71942 14 -1.65289 14 0  27.552 -1.97557  12.9  12.79 -0.84369  Sample 6, Dec. 18, 1987 Tag  214 223 228 243 258 262 267 268 469 515  initial sample 26.3 25.61 37.94 36.72 13.45 13.49 27.4 24.84 28.28 27.79 33.5 33.93 12.98 12.57 36.3 35.55 18.8 15.9 20.47 19.45 25.44  % chg -2.62357 -3.21560 0.297397 -9.34306 -1.73267 1.283582 -3.15870 -2.06611 -15.4255 5.244215  24.687 -3.07400  74  Initial 12.8 14.1 10.4 12.8 13.2 13.9 10.2 14 11.3 11.1 12.38  Sample 12.5 13. 6 10.5 12.6 12.9 13.7 10.3 13.9 11.3 11.1  % chg -2.34375 -3.54609 0.961538 -1.5625 -2.27272 -1.43884 0.980392 -0.71428 0 0  12.24 -0.99362  Sample 7, Dec. 22 Tag  202 207 213 214 215 224 258 260 262 263 267 268 318  initial sample 46.83 57.01 32.43 35.07 30.91 30.21 26.3 24.76 30.9 29.61 30.1 29.85 28.28 27.68 31.75 30.26 33.5 32.49 26.52 25.79 12.98 12.59 36.3 34.96 28.59 27.988 30.41461  % chg initial sample 21.73820 13.8 15.2 8.140610 13.8 13.6 -2.26463 13.3 13.2 -5.85551 12.8 12.6 -4.17475 13.4 13.3 -0.83056 13.7 13.5 -2.12164 13.2 12.8 -4.69291 13.2 13.2 -3.01492 13.9 13.9 -2.75263 12.7 12.7 -3.00462 10.2 10.4 -3.69146 14 13.9 -2.10563 15.1 13.1  % chg 10.14492 -1.44927 -0.75187 -1.5625 -0.74626 -1.45985 -3.03030 0 0 0 1.960784 -0.71428 -13.2450  30.636 -0.35619 13.31538 13.18461 -0.83489  Sample 8, Dec. 25 Tag  204 206 217 223 236 258 260 262 469 515  initial sample 24.74 22.91 44.68 71.05 12.05 11.28 37.94 35.7 36.15 42.54 28.28 27.94 31.75 29.66 33.5 31.41 18.8 17.2 19.45 24.99 28.734  % chg initial sample -7.39692 12.5 12.3 59.01969 15.1 16.9 -6.39004 9.8 9.7 -5.90405 14.1 13.7 17.67634 13.8 14.2 -1.20226 13.2 12.8 -6.58267 13.2 13.1 -6.23880 13.9 13.8 -8.51063 11.3 11.2 28.48329 11.1 11.5  31.468 6.295392  12.8  % chg -1.6 11.92052 -1.02040 -2.83687 2.898550 -3.03030 -0.75757 -0.71942 -0.88495 3.603603  12.92 0.757313  Sample 9, Dec. 29 Tag  204 207 211 212 217 224 227 258 260 262  initial sample 24.74 22.81 32.43 36.49 28.08 26.96 60.71 79.18 12.05 11.53 30.1 29.03 29.16 26.92 28.28 27.53 31.75 29.62 33.5 31.21 31.08  % chg initial sample -7.80113 12.5 12.4 12.51927 13.8 13.7 -3.98860 13 12.4 30.42332 15 15.4 -4.31535 9.8 9.7 -3.55481 13.7 13.4 -7.68175 13 12.8 -2.65205 13.2 12.7 -6.70866 13.2 13.2 -6.83582 13.9 13.6  32.128 -0.05955  75  13.11  % chg -0.8 -0.72463 -4.61538 2.666666 -1.02040 -2.18978 -1.53846 -3.78787 0 -2.15827  12.93 -1.41681  Sample 10, Jan. 1 Tag  204 206 215 217 224 225 260 268 458 469  initial sample 24.74 22.68 44.68 77.48 30.9 29.55 12.05 11.43 30.1 28.68 25.58 25.03 31.75 29.47 36.3 35.1 58.79 67.29 18.8 17 31.369  % chg initial sample -8.32659 12.5 12.5 73.41092 15.1 17.6 -4.36893 13.4 13.2 -5.14522 9.8 9.8 -4.71760 13.7 13.4 -2.15011 12.8 12.6 -7.18110 13.2 13.3 -3.30578 14 14.1 14.45824 16.3 15.8 -9.57446 11.3 11.3  34.371 4.309932  13.21  % chg  0 16.55629 -1.49253 0 -2.18978 -1.5625 0.757575 0.714285 -3.06748 0  13.36 0.971584  Sample 11, Jan 5, 1988 Tag  207 217 224 227 254 260 262 263 318 458  initial sample 32.43 38.24 12.05 11.28 30.1 28.63 29.16 27.38 19.43 30.11 31.75 29.68 33.5 31.57 26.52 25.42 28.59 28.39 58.79 68.81 30.232  % chg initial sample 17.91551 13.8 13.8 -6.39004 9.8 9.8 -4.88372 13.7 13.4 -6.10425 13 12.8 54.96654 10.8 12.3 -6.51968 13.2 13.2 -5.76119 13.9 13.7 -4.14781 12.7 12.5 -0.69954 15.1 12.9 17.04371 16.3 16.2  31.951 5.541951  13.23  % chg  0 0 -2.18978 -1.53846 13.88888 0 -1.43884 -1.57480 -14.5695 -0.61349  13.06 -0.80360  Sample 12, Jan. 8, 1988 Tag  211 217 223 224 227 236 254 258 263 318  initial sample 28.08 48.09 12.05 11.3 37.94 40.4 30.1 28.61 29.16 26.8 36.15 51.57 19.43 29.48 28.28 26.93 26.52 25.87 28.59 28.68 27.63  % chg initial sample % chg 71.26068 13 12.8 -1.53846 -6.22406 9.8 9.7 -1.02040 6.483921 14.1 14 -0.70921 -4.95016 13.7 13.4 -2.18978 -8.09327 13 12.8 -1.53846 42.65560 13.8 15 8.695652 51.72413 10.8 12.4 14.81481 -4.77369 13.2 12.8 -3.03030 -2.45098 12.7 12.6 -0.78740 0.314795 15.1 12.9 -14.5695  31.773 14.59469  76  12.92  12.84 -0.18731  Sample 13, Jan. 15 206 211 212 217 225 227 230 258 260 268  initial sample 44.68 82.31 28.08 27.53 60.71 89.11 12.05 11.18 25.58 24.51 29.16 26.53 24.85 48.91 28.28 26.39 31.75 29.29 36.3 34.77 32.144  % chg  84 .22112 -1 .95868 46 .77977 -7 .21991 -4 .18295 -9 .01920 96 .82092 -6 .68316 -7 .74803 -4 .21487  40.053 18 .67949  77  initial sample % chg 15.1 18.2 20.52980 12.7 -2.30769 13 15 16.1 7.333333 9.8 9.7 -1.02040 12.8 12.8 0 13 12.8 -1.53846 14 17.64705 11.9 13.2 12.8 -3.03030 13.2 13.2 0 14 13.9 -0.71428 13.1  13.62 3.689904  Group IB, I n i t i a l Values Dec. 4, 1987 Tag  Weight Length New Tag  210 30.61 13.4 233 31.2 13.1 234 30.44 13.1 235 34.38 13.8 237 39.68 14 238 23.78 12 239 20.22 11.1 240 35.5 14.1 241 19.49 11.1 244 20.61 11.2 281 19.06 11.4 284 34.16 13.5 285 24.85 12.5 286 55.97 15.1 287 20.24 11.9 289 37.75 14.9 290 20.81 11.5 291 42.28 13.4 301 35.24 14.5 307 33.75 13 308 24.43 11.7 309 40.55 13.4 321 21.5 11.6 324 13.9 10 328 18.38 10.6 331 77.32 15.4 334 21.35 11.7 335 30.9 13.2 336 37.08 13.8 337 19.69 11.5 338 22.78 11.6 354 49.3 14.8 367 25.53 12.4 369 19.29 11.1 374 12.31 10 383 23.62 12.1 384 26.19 12.5 385 54.75 15.5 386 80.05 16.1 387 32.59 12.8 count 40 avg 31.538 12.76 sum 1261.5 feed 63.076 g/day  261  258  521  78  Group IB, Samples  Dec. Tag  8, 1987 281 284 285 289 301 307 308 331 336 374  Initial Sample 19.06 18.3 34.16 32.35 24.85 23.92 37.75 38.57 35.24 34.47 33.75 32.23 24.43 25.37 77.32 61.43 37.08 37.43 12.31 12.37 33.595  Dec.  210 238 261 281 289 291 301 336 384 387  13.07  13.08 0.113635  Initial Sample % Initial Sample 30.61 30.53 -0.26135 13.4 13.1 23.78 21.91 -7.86375 12 11.7 30.44 30.35 -0.29566 13.1 13.2 19.06 18.05 -5.29905 11.4 11.5 37.75 38.17 1.112582 14.9 14.7 42.28 35.82-15.2790 13.4 13.6 35.24 34.17 -3.03632 14.5 14.1 37.08 36.78 -0.80906 13.8 13.9 26.19 25.92 -1.03092 12.5 12.7 32.59 32.29 -0.92052 12.8 12.8 31.502  Tag  31.644 -3.28169  % -0.87719 0.740740 1.6 -0.67114 -2.75862 1.538461 2.564102 0 0 -1  11, 1987  Tag  Dec.  % Initial Sample -3.98740 11.4 11.3 -5.29859 13.5 13.6 -3.74245 12.5 12.7 2.172185 14.9 14.8 -2.18501 14.5 14.1 -4.50370 13 13.2 3.847728 11.7 12 -20.5509 15.4 15.4 0.943905 13.8 13.8 0.487408 10 9.9  30.399 -3.36831  13.18  % -2.23880 -2.5 0.763358 0.877192 -1.34228 1.492537 -2.75862 0.724637 1.6 0  13.13 -0.33819  15, 1987 238 261 281 285 289 309 331 383 384 387  Initial Sample 23.78 25.06 30.27 13.3 19.06 18.98 24.85 23.82 37.75 36.92 40.55 46.18 77.32 70.4 23.62 22.95 26.19 25.35 32.59 32.18 33.598  % Initial Sample 5.382674 12 11.9 -56.0621 13.1 13.3 -0.41972 11.4 11.4 -4.14486 12.5 12.6 -2.19867 14.9 14.9 13.88409 13.4 13.7 -8.94981 15.4 15.9 -2.83657 12.1 12 -3.20733 12.5 12.6 -1.25805 12.8 13  31.514 -5.98103  79  13.01  % -0.83333 1.526717 0 0.8 0 2.238805 3.246753 -0.82644 0.8 1.5625  13.13 0.851499  Dec. Tag  18, 1987 210 261 281 286 289 301 308 374 383 521  Initial Sample 30.61 49.65 30.44 30.17 19.06 19.31 55.97 65.28 37.75 36.55 35.24 32.92 24.43 24.22 12.31 12.45 23.62 23.28 80.05 54.41 34.948  Dec. Tag  Tag  34.824 3.630647  13.23  13.33 0.664580  22, 1987 210 235 238 281 285 286 289 301 328 354  Initial Sample 30.61 29.1 34.38 33.92 23.78 25.84 19.06 18.8 24.85 22.99 55.97 57.65 37.75 36.18 35.24 32.58 18.38 19.18 49.3 49.32 32.932  Dec.  % Initial Sample % chg. 62.20189 13.4 13.3 -0.74626 -0.88699 13.1 13.2 0.763358 1.311647 11.4 11.4 0 16.63391 15.1 16.1 6.622516 -3.17880 14.9 14.8 -0.67114 -6.58342 14.5 14.2 -2.06896 -0.85959 11.7 11.9 1.709401 1.137286 10 10 0 -1.43945 12.1 12 -0.82644 -32.0299 16.1 16.4 1.863354  % Initial Sample -4.93302 13.4 13.5 -1.33798 13.8 13.9 8.662741 12 12.1 -1.36411 11.4 11.4 -7.48490 12.5 12.8 3.001608 15.1 16.4 -4.15894 14.9 14.8 -7.54824 14.5 14.1 4.352557 10.6 10.9 0.040567 14.8 15.6  32.556 -1.07697  13.3  % 0.746268 0.724637 0.833333 0 2.4 8.609271 -0.67114 -2.75862 2.830188 5.405405  13.55 1.811934  25, 1987 258 261 281 286 289 301 309 328 354 383  Initial Sample 25.53 22.82 30.44 29.5 19.06 18.46 55.97 55.85 37.75 35.72 35.24 32.45 40.55 43.8 18.38 18.89 49.3 48.29 23.62 22.63 33.584  % Initial Sample -10.6149 12.4 12.7 -3.08804 13.1 13.1 -3.14795 11.4 11.5 -0.21440 15.1 16.4 -5.37748 14.9 14.7 -7.91713 14.5 14.2 8.014796 13.4 14.8 2.774755 10.6 10.9 -2.04868 14.8 15.6 -4.19136 12.1 12  32.841 -2.58104  80  13.23  % 2.419354 0 0.877192 8.609271 -1.34228 -2.06896 10.44776 2.830188 5.405405 -0.82644  13.59 2.635148  Dec. Tag  29, 1987 210 235 237 238 285 289 291 308 336 374  Initial Sample % Initial Sample % 30.61 13.4 13.2 -1.49253 28.43 -7.12185 34.38 34.66 0.814426 13.8 13.9 0.724637 39.68 38.23 -3.65423 14 14.2 1.428571 23.78 28.71 20.73170 12 12.2 1.666666 24.85 22.48 -9.53722 12.5 12.8 2.4 35.32 -6.43708 37.75 14.9 14.8 -0.67114 42.28 42. 62 0.804162 13.4 14 4.477611 24.43 23.15 -5.23945 11.7 11.8 0.854700 37.08 35.31 -4.77346 13.8 13.9 0.724637 12.31 11.98 -2.68074 10 10 0 30.715  30.089 -1.70937  12.95  13.08 1.011314  1/ :1988 Tag  210 235 237 281 285 289 308 309 354 383  Initial Sample 30.61 28.69 34.38 34.35 39.68 38.02 19.06 20.1 24.85 22.74 37.75 35.02 24.43 23.68 40.55 59.44 49.3 59.24 23.62 22.5 32.423  %  -6.27245 -0.08726 -4.18346 5.456453 -8.49094 -7.23178 -3.06999 46.58446 20.16227 -4.74174  34.378 3.812552  Initial Sample 13.4 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14.4 11.4 11.6 12.7 12.5 14.9 14.8 11.7 11.9 13.4 14.9 14.8 15.8 12.1 11.9 13.2  %  0 0 2.857142 1.754385 1.6 -0.67114 1.709401 11.19402 6.756756 -1.65289  13.52 2.354768  5, :1988 Tag 210 235 238 261 285 289 308 309 331 336 383  Initial Sample 30.61 28.23 34.38 33.56 23.78 29.6 30.44 29.58 24.85 23.2 37.75 35.28 24.43 23.46 40.55 53.71 77.32 82.01 37.08 35.1 23.62 22.45  % chg Initial Sample % chg -7.77523 13.4 13.2 -1.49253 -2.38510 13.8 14 1.449275 24.47434 12 12.6 5 -2.82522 13.1 13.3 1.526717 -6.63983 12.5 12.6 0.8 -6.54304 14.9 14.8 -0.67114 -3.97052 11.7 11.8 0.854700 32.45376 13.4 15.2 13.43283 6.065700 15.4 17 10.38961 -5.33980 13.8 13.9 0.724637 -4.95342 12.1 11.9 -1. 65289  34.98272 36.01636 2.051053 13.28181 13.66363 2.760109  81  Jan. Tag  8, 1988 210 237 261 281 284 289 331 336 383 521  Initial Initial Sample Sample % % 13.4 13 .4 30.61 0 28.43 -7.12185 14 14 .4 2.857142 39.68 37.06 -6.60282 30.44 29.72 -2.36530 13.1 13 .2 0.763358 3.095487 11.4 11 .5 0.877192 19.06 19. 65 34.16 14 .8 9.629629 42.91 25.61475 13.5 -39.3112 12 .7 -14.7651 37.75 14.9 22.91 77.32 79.72 3.103983 15.4 17 .1 11.03896 37.08 34.72 -6.36461 13.8 13 .9 0.724637 77.32 12.1 12 -0.82644 82.01 6.065700 17 .1 6.211180 80.05 61.8 -22.7982 16.1 46.347  Tag  43.893 -4.66841  15,  1988  210 237 261 281 285 289 307 308 309 383  Initial Sample 30.61 28.41 39.68 37.38 30.44 29.42 19.06 20.52 24.85 22.88 37.75 34.55 33.75 52.38 24.43 22.99 40.55 65.75 23.62 22.08 30.474  %  -7.18719 -5.79637 -3.35085 7.660020 -7.92756 -8.47682 55.2 -5.89439 62.14549 -6.51989  33.636 7.985242  82  13.77  14. 01 1.651055  Initial Sample % 13.4 13 .2 -1.49253 14 14 .2 1.428571 13.1 13 .3 1.526717 11.4 11 .6 1.754385 12.5 12 .6 0.8 14 .8 -0.67114 14.9 13 15 .1 16.15384 11.7 11 .7 0 13.4 15 .7 17.16417 12.1 11 .9 -1.65289 12.95  13. 41 3.501112  Group IC, I n i t i a l Dec. 10/ 1987 Tag 205 222 226 231 257 264 315 317 319 320 322 323 325 327 329 330 332 333 350 351 352 353 358 361 363 364 365 366 368 370 371 372 373 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 count avg sum feed  Weight  Values Length  39 14.5 50.35 14.6 24.18 12.2 22.21 11.7 20.39 11.2 15.13 10.5 18.13 11 28.65 13.1 29.74 12.9 29.52 12.8 45.34 14.4 28 12.6 28.85 11.8 64.12 15.8 22.77 12.3 21.52 11.3 29.44 12.9 18.98 11.7 75.1 15.6 38.82 14.4 23.25 11.2 26.75 12.5 59.2 15.5 30.87 13.3 13.45 10.1 27.4 13.1 41.95 14 27.5 11.4 24.3 12 28.91 12.9 78.62 16.2 35.25 14 20.45 11.6 26.37 12.3 35.67 13.7 32 13.4 11.98 9.5 23.34 12.6 21.6 11.5 27.82 13.2 24.55 12.6 41 31.49926 12.77804 1291.47 64.5735 g/day  83  New  Tag 461  Group IC, Samples  Dec.  14, 1987  Tag  Initial 222 322 329 332 351 353 358 371 372 376  50.53 45.34 22.77 29.44 38.82 26.75 59.2 78.62 35.25 35.67 42.239  Dec.  Sample 45.33 45.33 22.28 28.84 39.85 26.83 54.97 75.37 35.01 35.25  %  Initial  -10.2909 -0.02205 -2.15195 -2.03804 2.653271 0.299065 -7.14527 -4.13380 -0.68085 -1.17746  14.6 14.4 12.3 12.9 14.4 12.5 15.5 16.2 14 13.7  40.906 -2.46880  14.05  Sample 14.9 14.5 12.3 12.9 14.5 12.5 15.8 16.5 14 13.8  % 2.054794 0.694444 0 0 0.694444 0 1.935483 1.851851 0 0.729927  14.17 0.796094  17, 1987  Tag  Initial 319 329 332 353 358 365 371 376 379 381 382  29.74 22.77 29.44 26.75 59.2 41.95 78.62 35.67 23.34 27.82 24.55  Sample  %  29.772 0.107599 21.92 -3.73298 27.86 -5.36684 26.01 -2.76635 52.57 -11.1993 38.86 -7.36591 71.88 -8.57288 34.78 -2.49509 23.21 -0.55698 27.44 -1.36592 23.72-3.38085  Initial 12.9 12.3 12.9 12.5 15.5 14 16.2 13.7 12.6 13.2 12.6  Sample 12.9 12.3 12.5 12.6 15.8 14.2 16.6 13.8 12.5 13.1 12.6  % 0 0 -3.10077 0.8 1.935483 1.428571 2.469135 0.729927 -0.79365 -0.75757 0  36.35 34.36563 -4.24505 13.49090 13.53636 0.246465 Dec.  21, 1987  Tag  Initial 222 257 320 329 353 358 371 372 381 382  50.35 20.39 29.52 22.77 26.75 59.2 78.62 35.25 27.82 24.55 37.522  Sample 53.58 19.71 28.87 21.7 26.11 50.02 69.41 33.77 27.29 24.01  % chg  Initial  6.415094 -3.33496 -2.20189 -4.69916 -2.39252 -15.5067 -11.7145 -4.19858 -1.90510 -2.19959  14.6 11.2 12.8 12.3 12.5 15.5 16.2 14 13.2 12.6  35.447 -4.17380  13.49  84  Sample 14.9 11.6 12.5 12.2 12.7 15.8 16.4 13.9 13 12.6  % chg 2.054794 3.571428 -2.34375 -0.81300 1.6 1.935483 1.234567 -0.71428 -1.51515 0  13.56 0.501007  Dec.  24, 1987  Tag  Initial 257 319 329 332 353 365 372 379 381 382  20.39 29.74 22.77 29.44 26.75 41.95 35.25 23.34 27.82 24.55 28.2  Dec.  19.1 28.84 20.98 27.53 25.6 36.69 33.31 22.58 26.59 23.47  % chg  Initial  -6.32663 -3.02622 -7.86122 -6.48777 -4.29906 -12.5387 -5.50354 -3.25621 -4.42127 -4.39918  11.2 12.9 12.3 12.9 12.5 14 14 12.6 13.2 12.6  26.469 -5.81198  12.82  Sample 11.7 12.8 12 12.8 12.6 14.3 14 12.6 13.1 12.6  % chg 4.464285 -0.77519 -2.43902 -0.77519 0.8 2.142857 0 0 -0.75757 0  12.85 0.266015  28, 1987  Tag  Initial 320 322 329 332 350 353 358 372 379 381  29.52 45.34 22.77 29.44 75.1 26.75 59.2 35.25 23.34 27.82 37.453  Dec.  Sample  Sample 28.89 49.91 21.25 27.08 74.59 25.62 58.69 34.02 23.38 26.53  % chg  Initial  -2.13414 10.07940 -6.67545 -8.01630 -0.67909 -4.22429 -0.86148 -3.48936 0.171379 -4.63695  12.8 14.4 12.3 12.9 15.6 12.5 15.5 14 12.6 13.2  36.996 -2.04663  13.58  Sample 12.7 14.8 12.1 12.7 16.1 12.5 16.1 14 12.5 13.1  % chg -0.78125 2.777777 -1.62601 -1.55038 3.205128 0 3.870967 0 -0.79365 -0.75757  13.66 0.434499  31, 1987  Tag  Initial 222 319 332 351 365 372 376 379 381 382  50.35 29.74 29.44 38.82 41.95 35.25 35.67 23.34 27.82 24.55 33.693  Sample 69.63 28.74 26.95 39.15 49.46 36.35 34.47 23.6 26.71 23.58  % chg  Initial  38.29195 -3.36247 -8.45788 0.850077 17.90226 3.1205.67 -3.36417 1.113967 -3.98993 -3.95112  14.6 12.9 12.9 14.4 14 14 13.7 12.6 13.2 12.6  35.864 3.815325  13.49  85  Sample 15.5 13 12.8 14.6 14.6 14.1 13.8 12.5 13.2 12.6  % chg 6.164383 0.775193 -0.77519 1.388888 4.285714 0.714285 0.729927 -0.79365 0 0  13.67 1.248954  Jan.  4, 1988  Tag  Initial 205 222 319 320 351 353 358 364 365 372 376 381 382  39 50.35 29.74 29.52 38.82 26.75 59.2 27.4 41.95 35.25 35.67 27.82 24.55  Sample 37.46 67.17 28.79 30.4 40.99 25.28 67.21 28.85 54.11 37.73 34.52 26.85 23.19  % chg -3.94871 33.40615 -3.19435 2.981029 5.589902 -5.49532 13.53040 5.291970 28.98688 7.035460 -3.22399 -3.48670 -5.53971  Initial 14.5 14.6 12.9 12.8 14.4 12.5 15.5 13.1 14 14 13.7 13.2 12.6  Sample 14.5 15.8 13 12.8 14.8 12.7 16.6 13 14.9 14.2 13.9 13.1 12.7  35.84769 38.65769 5.533308 13.67692 Jan.  0 8.219178 0.775193 0 2.777777 1.6 7.096774 -0.76335 6.428571 1.428571 1.459854 -0.75757 0.793650  14 2.235279  7, 1988  Tag  Initial 222 320 322 353 358 365 372 376 381 382  Jan.  % chg  Sample  % chg.  Initial  50.35 29.52 45.34 26.75 59.2 41.95 35.25 35.67 27.82 24.55  67.14 30.5 53.52 25.31 64.59 50.81 38.92 34.48 26.51 23.12  33.34657 3.319783 18.04146 -5.38317 9.104729 21.12038 10.41134 -3.33613 -4.70884 -5.82484  14.6 12.8 14.4 12.5 15.5 14 14 13.7 13.2 12.6  37.64  41.49 7.609127  13.73  Sample 15.9 12.8 15.6 12.6 16.7 15.1 14.3 13.9 13.1 12.6  % chg. 8.904109 0 8.333333 0.8 7.741935 7.857142 2.142857 1.459854 -0.75757 0  14.26 3.648165  14, 1988  Tag  Initial 226 257 319 320 322 329 332 365 379 381  24.18 20.39 29.74 29.52 45.34 22.77 29.44 41.95 23.34 27.82 29.449  Sample 23.28 18.86 28.57 29.18 51.12 21.84 27.09 46.05 23.68 26.31  % Chg  Initial  -3.72208 -7.50367 -3.93409 -1.15176 12.74812 -4.08432 -7.98233 9.773539 1.456726 -5.42774  12.2 11.2 12.9 12.8 14.4 12.3 12.9 14 12.6 13.2  29.598 -0.98276  12.85  86  Sample 12.2 11.7 13 12.8 15.6 12.2 12.8 15.3 12.6 13.1  % Chg 0 4.464285 0.775193 0 8.333333 -0.81300 -0.77519 9.285714 0 -0.75757  13.13 2.051274  Jan.  21, 1988 Initial 222 257 319 320 329 332 353 364 372 461  50.35 20.39 29.74 29.52 22.77 29.44 26.75 27.4 35.25 39 31.061  Sample 62.62 18.3 28.35 28.89 21.62 26.78 24.92 27.8 36.14 38.52  % Chg  Initial  24.36941 -10.2501 -4.67383 -2.13414 -5.05050 -9.03532 -6.84112 1.459854 2.524822 -1.23076  14.6 11.2 12.9 12.8 12.3 12.9 12.5 13.1 14 14.5  31.394 -1.08617  13.08  87  Sample 16 11.6 12.8 12.7 12.3 12.7 12.6 13.1 14.1 14.6  % Chg 9.589041 3.571428 -0.77519 -0.78125 0 -1.55038 0.8 0 0.714285 0.689655  13.25 1.225757  Group ID, I n i t i a l Values Dec. 15, 1987 Tag  count avg. sum feed  255 447 558 559 560 561 562 563 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 579 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 500 503 504 509 523 528  Weight  Length  New Tag  28.9 12.2 60.47 15.5 55.65 13.8 65.95 15.7 60.63 14.8 25.25 12.4 28.62 12.6 97.72 17.5 74.23 15.9 36.6 13.8 40.21 14.8 47.4 14.1 74.91 16.2 24.4 12.4 39.7 13.3 76.69 16.2 29.01 12.2 69.03 16.3 28.32 12.3 77.96 16.4 23.58 10.9 79.24 16.3 30.9 13.6 69.11 16.5 50.49 14.3 14.28 10.5 29.65 13.2 23.78 12.3 24.18 12.3 109.14 18.4 38.14 14.3 38.8 13.1 25.48 12.9 26.18 12.5 20.82 11.2 62.22 15.1 31.61 13.7 22.9 11.5 26.72 13.4 38.3 12.6 27.18 13.3 27.18 11.9 36.65 13.3 53.98 14.8 33.08 13.3 27.69 12.2 46 44.19413 13.82173 2032.93 60.9879 g/day  564  534  501  88  Group ID, Samples  Sample 1, Dec. 25, 1987. Tag  initial 501 523 565 583 588 589 591 593 597 598  38.3 33.08 74.23 69.11 24.18 109.14 38.8 26.18 22.9 26.72 46.264  sample  % diff.  34.73 33.97 65.29 60.81 24.03 99.86 34.68 25.88 20.93 26.45  Initial  -9.32114 2.690447 -12.0436 -12.0098 -0.62034 -8.50284 -10.6185 -1.14591 -8.60262 -1.01047  12.6 13.3 15.9 16.5 12.3 18.4 13.1 12.5 11.5 13.4  42.663 -6.11849  13.95  Sample  % chg.  12 -4.76190 13.2 -0.75187 16.3 2.515723 16.7 1.212121 12.2 -0.81300 18.3 -0.54347 13.6 3.816793 12.5 0 12 4.347826 13-2.98507 13.98  0.203711  Sample 2, J a n . 1, 1988. Tag  initial 501 523 558 560 566 574 576 588 594 596  38.3 33.08 55.65 60.63 36.6 69.03 77.96 24.18 20.82 31.61 44.786  sample  % diff.  33.82 33.5 47.2 51.9 35.99 61.35 67.73 23.55 20.15 31.15  Initial  -11.6971 1.269649 -15.1841 -14.3988 -1.66666 -11.1255 -13.1221 -2.60545 -3.21805 -1.45523  12.6 13.3 13.8 14.8 13.8 16.3 16.4 12.3 11.2 13.7  40.634 -7.32036  13.82  Sample  % chg.  12.3 -2.38095 13.4 0.751879 13.2 -4.34782 15.4 4.054054 13.8 0 16.9 3.680981 16.9 3.048780 12.2 -0.81300 11.2 0 13.8 0.729927 13.91  0.472383  Sample 3, J a n . 8, 1988. Tag  initial 255 504 509 528 558 577 586 589 597 598  28.9 36.65 53.98 27.69 55.65 23.58 29.65 109.14 22.9 26.72 41.486  sample  % diff.  24.16 33.41 49.4 25.29 45.81 18.78 28.5 95.83 20.25 26.12  Initial  -16.4013 -8.84038 -8.48462 -8.66738 -17.6819 -20.3562 -3.87858 -12.1953 -11.5720 -2.24550  12.2 13.3 14.8 12.2 13.8 10.9 13.2 18.4 11.5 13.4  36.755 -11.0323  13.37  89  Sample  % chg.  12.2 0 13.5 1.503759 14.9 0.675675 12.4 1.639344 13.5 -2.17391 10.9 0 13.2 0 18.6 1.086956 11.9 3.478260 12.9 -3.73134 13.4  0.247874  Sample 4, Jan. 15, 1988 Tag  initial 528 534 564 574 575 576 586 589 594 598  27.69 69.11 24.4 69.03 28.32 77.96 29.65 109.14 20.82 26.72 48.284  sample  %  diff. Initial  4.405922 9.072493 0.204918 -5.33101 -2.61299 -13.1349 -3.54131 -12.5984 -4.80307 -4.15419  12.2 16.5 12.4 16.3 12.3 16.4 13.2 18.4 11.2 13.4  45.881 -3.24926  14.23  28.91 75.38 24.45 65.35 27.58 67.72 28.6 95.39 19.82 25.61  Sample 12.6 16.7 12.3 17.2 12.4 17.1 13.2 18.8 11.1 13  % chg. 3.278688 1.212121 -0.80645 5.521472 0.813008 4.268292 0 2.173913 -0.89285 -2.98507  14.44 1.258311  Sample 5, Jan. 22, 1988. Tag  initial 500 528 559 570 574 576 579 587 588 592  27.18 27.69 65.95 24.4 69.03 77.96 79.24 23.78 24.18 25.48 44.489  sample 27.36 36.58 73.84 23.78 76.16 77.28 87.15 22.53 22.75 25.48  % diff.  Initial  0.662251 32.10545 11.96360 -2.54098 10.32884 -0.87224 9.982332 -5.25651 -5.91397 0  13 .3 12 .2 15 .7 12 .4 16 .3 16 .4 16 .3 12 .3 12 .3 12 .9  47.291 5.045876  14. 01  Sample 13.3 13 16.7 12.4 17.5 17.2 17.5 12.3 12.1 12.7  % chg, 0 6. 557377 6. 369426 0 7. 361963 4. 878048 7. 361963 0 -1 .62601 -1 .55038  14.47 2. 935237  Sample 6, Jan. 29, 1988 Tag  initial 255 503 504 509 534 558 565 576 584 587  28.9 25.02 36.65 53.98 69.11 55.65 74.23 77.96 50.49 23.78 49.577  sample 37.72 34.65 55.69 80.27 90.03 60.12 93.46 87.67 66.91 22.25  % diff. Initial 30 .51903 38 .48920 51 .95088 48 .70322 30 .27058 8. 032345 25 .90596 12 .45510 32 .52129 -6 .43397  12.2 11.9 13.3 14.8 16.5 13.8 15. 9 16.4 14.3 12.3  62.877 27 .24136  14.14  90  Sample 13 12.6 14.6 16.5 17.7 14 17.7 17.7 16 12.3  % chg. 6. 557377 5. 882352 9. 774436 11 .48648 7. 272727 1. 449275 11 .32075 7. 926829 11 .88811 0  15.21 7. 355835  Group IE, I n i t i a l Values Dec. 6, 1987 Tag  count avg sum feed  219 220 221 229 252 253 256 265 266 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 283 300 302 303 304 305 306 310 311 313 314 316 326 355 356 357 359 360 362  Weight  Length  New Tag  19.91 11.1 26.8 12.9 19.41 11 11.38 10.1 30.08 12.6 44.89 14.3 24.65 12.1 44.4 14.9 35.25 14.2 30.38 13.5 63.7 15.5 36.12 14.5 73.8 15.8 26.98 12.9 66.68 16.4 61.92 16 29.23 12.8 23.09 12.4 48.54 15 39.81 13.6 56.38 15.1 28.22 12.8 43.1 14.5 18.64 11.1 24.92 13.1 35.24 13.4 20.9 11.8 40.08 14.1 21.4 11.8 31.29 13.9 28.55 12.4 20.18 11.8 41.41 14.6 36.52 13.6 75.4 16.8 25.98 12.9 23.59 12.4 44.75 14.3 64.02 16 40.95 13.6 40 36.9635 13.54 1437.59 71.8795 g/day  91  508  502,524  449 406  421  Group IE, Samples Weight Dec.  Length  25, 1987: Sample 1  Tag  Initial 271 277 283 300 310 316 326 355 502 508  36.12 23.09 28.22 43.1 21.4 41.41 36.52 75.4 44.4 26.8 37.646  1/ :1988: Tag  44.89 24.65 73.8 26.98 61.92 28.22 35.24 41.41 23.59 40.08 40.078  8, :1988: Tag  -5.81395 -3.63793 -0.95676 -1.43851 -5.70093 -2.48732 7.995618 18.10344 1.013513 -9.36567  14.5 12.4 12.8 14.5 11.8 14.6 13.6 16.8 14.9 12.9  38.489 -0.22885  13.88  Sample 14.3 12.3 13.1 14.4 11.6 14.5 14.3 18.2 14.7 12.8  % chg. -1.37931 -0.80645 2.34375 -0.68965 -1.69491 -0.68493 5.147058 8.333333 -1.34228 -0.77519  14.02 0.845140  %  Sample 50.71 26.22 79.95 25.32 68.82 26.94 37.59 39.93 22.38 41.46  Initial  12.96502 6.369168 8.333333 -6.15270 11.14341 -4.53579 6.668558 -3.57401 -5.12929 3.443113  14.3 12.1 15.8 12.9 16 12.8 13.4 14.6 12.4 14.1  41.932 2.953080  13.84  Sample 15.5 12.8 17.1 12.8 16.7 13.1 14.1 14.4 12 14.3  % chg. 8.391608 5.785123 8.227848 -0.77519 4.375 2.34375 5.223880 -1.36986 -3.22580 1.418439  14.28 3.039478  Sample 3  Initial 256 270 278 304 311 355 357 362 406 421  34.02 22.25 27.95 42.48 20.18 40.38 39.44 89.05 44.85 24.29  Initial  Sample 2  Initial 253 256 272 273 275 283 304 316 357 406  %  Sample  24.65 63.7 48.54 35.24 31.29 75.4 23.59 40.95 40.08 64.02 44.746  %  Sample 26.09 68.71 55.64 37 30.3 84.6 22.36 47.52 41.41 62.59  Initial  5.841784 7.864992 14.62711 4.994324 -3.16395 12.20159 -5.21407 16.04395 3.318363 -2.23367  12.1 15.5 15 13.4 13.9 16.8 12.4 13.6 14.1 16  47.622 5.428042  14.28  92  Sample 12.7 16.7 16 14.3 13.4 18.3 12.2 14.7 14.4 16.2  % chg. 4.958677 7.741935 6.666666 6.716417 -3.59712 8.928571 -1.61290 8.088235 2.127659 1.25  14.89 4.126813  Jan.  15, 1988: Sample 4  Tag  Initial 269 270 274 277 283 302 304 311 326 406  30.38 63.7 66.68 23.09 28.22 18.64 35.24 31.29 36.52 40.08 37.384  Jan.  %  29.3 75.32 83.28 23.22 30 22.07 40.88 30.11 41.89 41.89  Initial  Sample  % chg.  -3.55497 18.24175 24.89502 0.563014 6.307583 18.40128 16.00454 -3.77117 14.70427 4.515968  13.5 15.5 16.4 12.4 12.8 11.1 13.4 13.6 13.6 14.1  13.4 17.1 17.8 12.3 13.2 11.4 14.3 13.3 14.7 14.5  -0.74074 10.32258 8.536585 -0.80645 3.125 2.702702 6.716417 -2.20588 8.088235 2.836879  41.796 9.630730  13.64  14.2  3.857532  22, 1988: Sample 5  Tag  Initial 271 272 274 283 302 304 311 359 449 467  36.12 73.8 66.68 28.22 18.64 35.24 31.29 44.75 24.92 11.38 37.104  Jan.  Sample  Sample  %  35.81 102.09 87.22 33.86 26.42 47.18 30.31 66.08 33.98 11.14  Initial  Sample  % chg.  -0.85825 38.33333 30.80383 19.98582 41.73819 33.88195 -3.13199 47.66480 36.35634 -2.10896  14.5 15.8 16.4 12.8 11.1 13.4 13.9 14.3 13.1 10.1  14.6 17.9 18.3 13.4 11.7 14.9 13.5 16 14.3 10  0.689655 13.29113 18.3 13.4 5.405405 11.19402 -2.87769 11.88811 9.160305 -0.99009  47.409 24.26650  13.54  14.46  7.946085  29, 1988: Sample 6  Tag  Initial 269 271 274 277 283 311 316 357 467 502  30.38 36.12 66.68 23.09 28.22 31.29 41.41 23.59 11.38 44.4 33.656  Sample  %  28.92 38.01 98.08 28.53 37.12 30.37 41.61 23.88 11.09 67.31  Initial  -4.80579 5.232558 47.09058 23.55998 31.53791 -2.94023 0.482975 1.229334 -2.54833 51.59909  13.5 14.5 16.4 12.4 12.8 13.9 14.6 12.4 10.1 14.9  40.492 15.04380  13.55  93  Sample  % chg.  13.5 0 14.5 0 18.5 12.80487 12.6 1.612903 13.5 5.46875 13.5 -2.87769 14.6 0 12.4 0 10.2 0.990099 15.8 6.040268 13.91  2.403920  Group IF, I n i t i a l Values Dec. 17, 1987 Tag 505 507 509 510 511 512 513 514 516 517 518 519 520 526 527 529 530 531 532 533 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 578 580 581  Weight 39 29.75 16.45 33.52 38.65 51.24 44.58 29.361 39.02 83.6 40.64 40.12 64.66 29.31 27.5 48.35 106.54 19.55 58.65 39.92 88.28 26.42 16.08 34.48 31.82 43.95 34.46 20.61 58.98 46.7 18.3 54.59 22.08 67.71 56.75 110.28 21.8 42.29 51.38 35.69 28 31.32 71.68 35.3 17.6  Length  New Tag  13.9 13 10.9 13.5 13.7 15.5 14.2 14.1 14.6 17.3 14.3 13.3 15.7 12.8 12.5 15 18.9 11.8 15.8 14.2 17.9 12.3 10.3 13.4 13.3 14.6 12.6 11.6 15.5 14.1 11.3 15.8 12 16.5 14.7 19.1 11.9 14.8 14 13.7 12.4 12.7 16.3 13.7 10.3  94  525  413 424 417  Group IF, Samples Weight Dec.  Length  25, 1987: Sample 1  Tag  Initial 424 507 509 513 516 519 526 546 551 557  58.65 29.75 16.45 44.58 39.02 40.12 29.31 18.3 110.28 31.32 41.778  1/ :1988: Tag  % change I n i t i a l  54.01 29.5 16.8 38.42 38.92 34.68 28.01 18.06 98.15 28.06  -7.91133 -0.84033 2.12.7659 -13.8178 -0.25627 -13.5593 -4.43534 -1.31147 -10.9992 -10.4086  11 13 10.9 14.2 14.6 13.3 12.8 11.3 19.1 12.7  38.461 -6.14122  13.29  Sample 15 .9 12 .9 10 .9 14 .2 14 .4 13 .6 12 .9 11 .1 18 .5 12 .8  % chg. 44.54545 -0.76923 0 0 -1.36986 2.255639 0.78125 -1.76991 -3.14136 0.787401  13. 72 4.131937  Sample 2  Initial 417 507 509 511 512 527 542 546 552 555  Sample  26.42 29.75 16.45 38.65 51.24 27.5 34.46 18.3 21.8 35. 69 30.026  %  Sample 25.09 29 15.65 29.8 45.55 24.42 29.4 17.85 20.55 33.81  Initial  -5.03406 -2.52100 -4.86322 -22.8978 -11.1046 -11.2 -14.6836 -2.45901 -5.73394 -5.26758  12.3 13 10.9 13.7 15.5 12.5 12.6 11.3 11.9 13.7  27.112 -8.57649  12.74  Sample 12 .3 13 10 .8 13 .5 15 .3 12 .4 12 .3 11 .2 11 .8 13 .4  % chg. 0 0 -0.91743 -1.45985 -1.29032 -0.8 -2.38095 -0.88495 -0.84033 -2.18978  12 .6 -1.07636  8, 1988: Sample 3 Tag  Initial 413 424 513 516 518 520 527 541 546 553  19.55 58.65 44.58 39.02 40.64 64.66 27.5 43.95 18.3 42.29 39.914  %  Sample 18.92 52.88 37.09 39.03 39.38 54.9 24.51 38.49 17.6 40.82  Initial  -3.22250 -9.83802 -16.8012 0.025627 -3.10039 -15.0943 -10.8727 -12.4232 -3.82513 -3.47599  11.8 15.8 14.2 14.6 14.3 15.7 12.5 14.6 11.3 14.8  36.362 -7.86279  13.96  95  Sample 11 .6 15 .9 14 .2 14 .5 14 .3 15 .6 12 .5 14 .7 11 .1 14 .6  % chg. -1.69491 0.632911 0 -0.68493 0 -0.63694 0 0.684931 -1.76991 -1.35135  13 .9 -0.48202  Jan.  15, 1988: Sample 4  Tag  Initial 413 505 507 516 517 520 527 530 544 546  19.55 39 29.75 39.02 83.6 64.66 27.5 106.54 58.98 18.36 48.696  Jan.  %  18.46 37.78 28.62 39.5 84.12 55.69 24.89 97.28 59.66 17.35  Initial  -5.57544 -3.12820 -3.79831 1.230138 0.622009 -13.8725 -9.49090 -8.69157 1.152933 -5.50108  11.8 13.9 13 14.6 17.3 15.7 12.5 18.9 15.5 11.3  46.335 -4.70530  14.45  Sample 11.6 13.9 13.9 14.7 17.4 16 12.6 19.3 15.2 11.2  % chg. -1.69491 0 6.923076 0.684931 0.578034 1.910828 0.8 2.116402 -1.93548 -0.88495  14.58 0.849791  22, 1988: Sample 5  Tag  Initial 507 509 513 516 542 546 548 551 553 555 557  Jan.  Sample  2 9,  Tag  29.75 16.45 44.58 39.02 34.46 18.3 22.08 110.28 42.29 35.69 31.32 39.29  %  28.02 15.15 48.61 38.95 31.08 17.88 22.28 109.28 40.58 37.55 37.71 38.938  -5.81512 -7.90273 9.039928 -0.17939 -9.80847 -2.29508 0.905797 -0.90678 -4.04350 5.211543 20.40229 -1.57938  Initial 13 10.9 14.2 14.6 12.6 11.3 12 19.1 13.7 12.7 13.41  Sample  % chg.  12.9 10.7 14.7 14.7 12.5 11.2 11.9 19.2 13.9 13.3  -0.76923 -1.83486 3.521126 0.684931 -0.79365 -0.88495 -0.83333 0.523560 1.459854 4.724409  13.5 0.579784  1988: Sample 6 Initial  413 507 514 520 525 527 533 543 554 555  Sample  19.55 29.75 29.61 64.66 40.12 27.5 39.92 20.61 51.38 35.69 35.879  Sample  %  20.43 27.58 62.98 70.39 45.9 29.89 58.81 21.72 69.11 42.82  Initial  4.501278 -7.29411 112.6984 8.861738 14.40677 8.690909 47.31963 5.385735 34.50759 19.97758  11.8 13 14.1 15.7 13.3 12.5 14.2 11.6 14 13.7  44.963 24.90555  13.39  96  Sample  % chg.  11.8 13 15.5 16.5 13.9 12.8 15.1 11.9 15.5 14  0 0 18.3 13.4 4.511278 2.4 6.338028 2.586206 10.71428 2.189781  14 6.043957  Group 2A: I n i t i a l J u l y 19, 1988 Tag 650 651 610 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696  Weight 123.68 136.81 66.91 151.62 48.12 97.59 100.01 163.8 134.52 109.22 126.22 56.92 97.63 147.68 181.35 184.72 115.5 179.18 189.11 71.59 120.05 128.78 108.75 130.6 107.57 81.95 76.47 68.77 142.6 128.98 72.65 132.24 104.82 135.05 139.38 49.72 115.3 93.98 169.92 143.57 76.61 112.18 173.22 120.68 106.15 113.47  Values Length 19.4 20.1 15.7 20.2 14.3 17.5 18.8 20.7 20.8 18.5 19.6 15 18.2 20.7 22.5 22.2 19.4 21.4 21.7 15.7 19.2 20.2 18.2 20.1 18.5 16.9 16.5 15.4 20.3 19.7 17 19.6 18.7 19.7 19.9 14.5 18.8 17.1 21.5 20.3 16.6 19.4 20.9 19.8 18.2 19.2  97  Weight  Length  69.72 100.11 61.12 130.5 127.78 165.88  16.5 18.2 15.6 19.4 19.8 21.2  116.6052 5830.26 (5%) 291.513  18.796  Tag 697 698 699 700 701 702 avg: sum: feed  98  Group 2B: I n i t i a l Values J u l y 19, 1988 Tag 600 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 611 612 613 614 615 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649  Weight 115. 23 159. 11 119. 26 118i . l 75. 33 120. 17 165 .6 78. 51 183. 65 50. 24 95. 42 123. 52 117. 75 491.2 125. 35 146. 45 137 .5 112. 35 174. 09 144. 05 115. 68 155. 77 120. 21 125. 45 131. 05 126. 83 110. 63 171. 16 42 143. 95 106. 73 106 .1 107. 25 123. 21 97. 17 93. 02 100. 52 133. 25 109. 64 113. 31 103. 23 183. 01 130. 62 112. 72 168. 18  Length 18.7 21.4 19.3 19.3 16.7 19.1 21.5 16.5 22.5 14.9 17.5 19.7 19.1 13.4 19.9 20.4 20.5 17.6 21.3 20.1 18.6 20.2 19.1 18.8 19.8 18.9 18.5 21.8 13.3 20.6 18.2 18.8 18.6 19.3 17.6 17.6 17.8 20 18 19.8 18 22.5 19.3 18.7 21.2  99  Weight  Length  124.81 162.59 157.83 160.98 143.28  19.3 21.1 21.6 21.4 19.5  avg: 123.8212 total: 6191.06 feed (5%) 309.553  19.146  Tag 750 751 752 753 754  100  E x p e r i m e n t 2: Sample 1 A u g u s t 10, 1988 Group 2B Tag # Initial 604 605 606 608 613 614 618 621 636 637 639 640 646 668 751 avg  118.1 75.33 120.17 78.51 123.52 117.75 146.45 174.09 106.1 107.25 97.17 93.02 183.01 189.11 162.59  avg  % change i n i t i a l  diff  -0.51813 0.598802 1.047120 3.030303 -1.01522 0.523560 -0.98039 -0.93896 0 0.537634 0 1.136363 -0.44444 0.460829 -0.47393  126.1446 112.6626 -11.2325 19.33333  19.36  0.197567  weight Sample  -8.14563 -20.6425 -8.81251 -27.0029 -10.0712 -8.83227 -9.76442 -12.7405 -7.08765 -8.98834 -9.13862 -8.17028 -12.5457 -9.23272 -7.31287  %  19.2 16.8 19.3 17 19.5 19.2 20.2 21.1 18.8 18.7 17.6 17.8 22.4 21.8 21  100.01 134.52 147.68 115.5 120.05 107.57 76.47 68.77 139.38 169.92 143.57 112.18 173.22 120.68 106.15 127.78  108.48 59.78 109.58 57.31 111.08 107.35 132.15 151.91 98.58 97.61 88.29 85.42 160.05 171.65 150.7  length sample  19.3 16.7 19.1 16.5 19.7 19.1 20.4 21.3 18.8 18.6 17.6 17.6 22.5 21.7 21.1  Group 2A Tag # Initial 655 657 662 666 670 674 676 678 685 689 690 692 693 694 695 701  Weight Sample  % change i n i t i a l  92.83 124.25 244.53 117.65 104.77 165.2 93.46 60.08 199.24 242.13 200.54 101.91 155.42 213.61 95.25 117.81  18.8 20.8 20.7 19.4 19.2 18.5 16.5 15.4 19.9 21.5 20.3 19.4 20.9 19.8 18.2 19.8  %  diff  18.5 20.6 22.8 19.7 18.9 20 17 15.5 21.1 22.8 21.8 19.4 20.7 21.6 18.5 19.6  -1.59574 -0.96153 10.14492 1.546391 -1.5625 8.108108 3.030303 0.649350 6.030150 6.046511 7.389162 0 -0.95693 9.090909 1.648351 -1.01010  122.7156 145.5425 16.73030 19.31875 19.90625  2.974834  101  -7.17928 -7.63455 65.58098 1.861471 -12.7280 53.57441 22.21786 -12.6363 42.94733 42.49646 39.68099 -9.15492 -10.2759 77.00530 -10.2684 -7.80247  length sample  Group 2A: sample 2 August 31, 1988 tag  i n i t . wt sample wt% 652 653 656 657 660 661 664 666 670 671 672 675 676 677 678 680 681 682 683 685 686 687 688 689 691 692 694 697 698  151. 62 48. 12 163 .8 134. 52 109. 22 97. 63 181. 35 115 .5 120. 05 128. 78 108. 75 81. 95 76. 47 130. 32 68. 77 128. 98 72. 65 132. 24 104. 82 139. 38 49. 72 115 .3 93. 98 169. 92 76. 61 112. 18 120. 68 69. 72 100. 11 110.4531  305. 77 57. 85 216. 82 89. 51 69. 48 99. 62 355 .7 175. 82 106. 32 219. 31 229'.8 89. 51 116. 09 149. 55 78. 82 117. 33 165. 58 128. 28 162. 91 257. 28 48. 44 109. 51 110. 62 330. 38 99. 62 112. 48 304. 68 83. 28 187. 58  dif  101.6686 20.22028 32.36874 -33.4597 -36.3852 2.038307 96.14006 52.22510 -11.4369 70.29818 111.3103 9.225137 51.81116 14.75598 14.61393 -9.03240 127.9146 -2.99455 55.41881 84.58889 -2.57441 -5.02168 17.70589 94.43267 30.03524 0.267427 152.4693 19.44922 87.37388  init  l n . sample l n % d i f f 20 .2 14 .3 20 .7 20 .8 18 .5 18 .2 22 .5 19 .4 19 .2 20 .2 18 .2 16 .9 16 .5 20 .4 15 .4 19 .7 17 19 .6 18 .7 19 .9 14 .5 18 17 .1 21 .5 16 .6 19 .4 19 .8 16 .5 18 .2  24 .4 14 .9 22 .7 17 .2 15 .8 17 .7 26 .7 21 .2 18 .9 22 .9 22 17 .2 18 21 .1 16 .8 19 .6 21 .5 19 .7 20 .3 23 .2 14 .5 18 .8 18 .1 24 .9 17 .7 19 .5 24 .3 17 21 .2  20.79207 4.195804 9.661835 -17.3076 -14.5945 -2.74725 18.66666 9.278350 -1.5625 13.36633 20.87912 1.775147 9.090909 3.431372 9.090909 -0.50761 26.47058 0.510204 8.556149 16.58291 0 4.444444 5.847953 15.81395 6.626506 0.515463 22.72727 3.030303 16.48351  157. 86 39.49748 18.54827 19.92413 7.279936  102  Group 2B: sample 2 August 31, 1988 tag  i n i t . wt sample wt% 600 602 603 606 607 609 614 615 617 620 622 623 626 627 629 631 634 635 637 638 640 641 644 645 646 648 628 750 751 752 753  Avg ration  115. 23 159. 11 119. 26 120. 17 165 .6 183. 65 117. 75 49 .2 125. 35 112. 35 144. 05 115. 68 120. 21 125. 45 126. 83 171. 16 143. 95 106. 73 107. 25 123. 21 93. 02 100. 52 113. 31 103. 23 183. 01 112. 78 131. 05 124. 81 162. 59 157. 83 160. 98  172. 11 192. 88 165. 58 142. 09 247. 35 160 .2 158 .3 56. 16 176. 35 148. 38 125. 05 108. 08 169.06 184. 98 186. 77 180. 21 129. 78 133. 58 142 .4 156. 35 150. 28 104. 21 163. 87 154. 08 244 .3 114. 08 164. 72 157. 31 201. 35 227. 66 273. 85  dif  49.36214 21.22431 38.83951 18.24082 49.36594 -12.7688 34.43736 14.14634 40.68607 32.06942 -13.1898 -6.56984 40.63721 47.45316 47.26011 5.287450 -9.84369 25.15693 32.77389 26.89716 61.55665 3.670911 44.62095 49.25893 33.48997 1.152686 25.69248 26.03958 23.83910 44.24380 70.11429  init  l n . sample l n % d i f f 18 .7 21 .4 19 .3 19 .1 21 .5 22 .5 19 .1 13 .4 19 .9 17 .6 21 .1 18 .6 19 .1 18 .8 18 .9 21 .8 20 .6 18 .2 18 .6 19 .3 17 .6 17 .8 19 .8 18 22 .5 18 .7 19 .8 19 .3 21 .1 21 .6 21 .4  20 .8 22 .6 21 .1 20 .2 24 22 .2 20 .5 14 .3 21 .9 19 .1 19 .9 18 .6 20 .8 20 .9 21 .1 21 .9 20 .5 19 .3 20 .2 21 .4 19 .8 18 .1 21 .4 19 .3 24 .4 18 .7 21 .4 20 .5 22 .2 23 .5 23 .9  11.22994 5.607476 9.326424 5.759162 11.62790 -1.33333 7.329842 6.716417 10.05025 8.522727 -5.68720 0 8.900523 11.17021 11.64021 0.458715 -0.48543 6.043956 8.602150 10.88082 12.5 1.685393 8.080808 7.222222 8.444444 0 8.080808 6.217616 5.213270 8.796296 11.68224  128.8812 164.2377 27.90790 19.51935 20.79032 6.589802 (5%)  initial % change sample t o t a l 6191.06 27.9079 7918.854  103  ration 395.9427  E x p e r i m e n t 2: Sample 3 S e p t . 21, 1988 Group 2A Weight initial  Tag # 654 661 666 676 679 681 685 691 694 696 699 700 Avg.  97.59 97.63 115.5 76.47 142.6 72. 65 139.38 76.61 120.68 113.47 61.12 130.5  sample 246.87 227.02 252.63 145.72 244 135.81 336.49 118.79 405.71 136.25 108.14 444.98  %  Length change i n i t i a l  152.9664 132.5309 118.7272 90.55838 71.10799 86.93737 141.4191 55.05808 236.1866 20.07579 76.93062 240.9808  sample 21.7 23 23.2 19.2 22.7 19.6 24.4 18.3 26.4 19.6 17.2 26.1  17.5 18.2 19.4 16.5 20.3 17 19.9 16.6 19.8 19.2 15.6 19.4  %  change  24 26.37362 19.58762 16.36363 11.82266 15.29411 22.61306 10.24096 33.33333 2.083333 10.25641 34.53608  103.6833 233.5341 118.6233 18.28333 21.78333 18.87540  Group 2B Tag # 617 622 625 627 628 629 630 635 641 751 752 757 Avg.  Weight initial sample 125.35 159.37 144.05 126.25 155.77 215.8 125.45 158.78 131.05 162.91 126.83 155.57 110.63 125.58 106.73 117.08 100.52 99.78 162.59 164 157.83 217.81 136.31  Length % change i n i t i a l sample 27.14000 21.9 19.9 -12.3568 20.1 20.1 38.53758 20.2 22.7 26.56835 18.8 20.6 24.31133 19.8 21.2 22.66025 18.9 20.7 13.51351 18.5 19.6 9.697367 18.2 19.4 -0.73617 17.8 18.3 0.867212 21.1 22.3 38.00291 21.6 23.6 19.1  % change 10.05025 0 12.37623 9.574468 7.070707 9.523809 5.945945 6.593406 2.808988 5.687203 9.259259  131.5272 154.8118 17.10959 19.53636 20.94545 7.171843  F e e d i n g Amounts Tank 5 (5%)  initial total feed/day 5830.26 12746.30 637.3153  Tank 7 (5%)  6191.06 7250.324 362.5162  104  (g)  E x p e r i m e n t 2: Sample 4 Oct. 12, 1988 Group  2A  # 654 655 661 662 666 669 670 680 681 683 687 688 692 697 698 700  Weight initial 97.59 100.01 97.63 147.68 115.5 71.59 120.05 128.98 72.65 104.82 115.3 93.98 112.18 69.72 100.11 130.5  sample 314 .88 151 .16 327 .15 483 .52 313 .58 157 .33 210 .61 234 .91 220 .65 338 .38 167 .47 204 .05 271 .69 186 .54 316 .65 578 .28  %  change  222.6560 51.14488 235.0916 227.4106 171.4978 119.7653 75.43523 82.12901 203.7164 222.8200 45.24718 117.1206 142.1911 167.5559 216.3020 343.1264  Length initial 17 .5 18 .8 18 .2 20 .7 19 .4 15 .7 19 .2 19 .7 17 18 .7 18 .8 17 .1 19 .4 16 .5 18 .2 19 .4  sample 24. 1 21 25. 3 28. 4 25. 3 19. 8 22. 1 22. 6 22. 3 25. 7 21. 1 20. 6 24. 2 20. 9 24. 8 28. 9  % change <  37 .71428 11 .70212 39 .01098 37 .19806 30 .41237 26 .11464 15 .10416 14 .72081 31 .17647 37 .43315 12 .23404 20 .46783 24 .74226 26 .66666 36 .26373 48 .96907  A v e r a g e 104.8931 279.8031 165.2006 18.39375 23.56875 28.12066 S.D. 21.25444 114.2811 78.43601 1.286209 2.646157 10.73070  105  Group 2B Tag  # 612 614 625 629 630 631 635 640 641 642 643 644 750 751 752 757  Weight initial 95.42 117.75 155.77 126.83 110.63 171.16 106.73 93.02 100.52 133.25 109.64 113.31 124.81 162.59 157.83  sample 201.65 229.78 361.22 255.6 201.63 318.61 201.45 253.05 165.73 259.98 209.65 237.98 239.03 280.91 379.05 219.35  % change 111.3288 95.14225 131.8931 101.5296 82.25616 86.14746 88.74730 172.0382 64.87266 95.10694 91.21670 110.0255 91.51510 72.77200 140.1634  Length initial 17.5 19.1 20.2 18.9 18.5 21.8 18.2 17.6 17.8 20.1 18.1 19.8 19.3 21.1 21.6  sample 21.3 22.3 25.1 22.8 21.6 25 21.2 23 20.3 23.1 21.2 23.6 22.7 23.9 26.1 20.8  % change 21.71428 16.75392 24.25742 20.63492 16.75675 14.67889 16.48351 30.68181 14.04494 14.92537 17.12707 19.19191 17.61658 13.27014 20.83333  Average 125.284 250.9168 102.3170 19.30666 22.75 18.59806 S.D. 24.63195 57.11309 26.80272 1.374756 1.625576 4.394011 Feeding Tank 5 Tank 7  initial  % change  5830.26 Starvation  106  Total  165.2 15461.84 Period  feed/day 773.0924  (g)  E x p e r i m e n t 2: Sample 5 November 2, 1988 Group 2A Tag  # 655 659 661 666 667 671 679 680 681 687 688 689 694 696 697  Average S.D.  Weight initial 100. 01 126. 22 97. 63 115 .5 179. 18 128. 78 142 .6 128. 98 72. 65 115 .3 93. 98 169. 92 120. 68 113. 47 69. 72  sample 173 .37 253 .05 405 .77 383 .55 586 .28 463 .44 428 .88 291 .21 286 .31 183 .91 258 .87 573 .35 669 .85 260 .15 229 .02  % change 73. 35266 100 .4832 315 .6201 232 .0779 227 .2016 259 .8695 200 .7573 125 .7791 294 .0949 59. 50563 175 .4522 237 .4234 455 .0629 129 .2676 228 .4853  Length initial 18 .8 19 .6 18 .2 19 .4 21 .4 20 .2 20 .3 19 .7 17 18 .8 17 .1 21 .5 19 .8 19 .2 16 .5  sample 22. 24. 27. 27. 29. 29. 27. 25. 25. 22. 22. 31. 31. 23. 23.  % change 4 4 6 2 8 4 7 1 3 2 3 1 4 5 1  19 .14893 24 .48979 51 .64835 40 .20618 39 .25233 45 .54455 36 .45320 27 .41116 48 .82352 18 .08510 30 .40935 44 .65116 58 .58585 22 .39583 40  118.308 363.134 207.6289 19.16666 26.16666 36.47369 29.54218 149.5474 100.2556 1.437435 3.133191 11.98323  107  Group 2B Tag  # 605 614 619 627 629 630 631 632 639 642 644 645 648 751 752 757  Weight initial 75. 33 117. 75 137 .5 125. 45 126. 83 110. 63 171. 16 42 97. 17 133. 25 113. 31 103. 23 112. 72 162. 59 157. 83  sample 135 .14 191 .06 235 .51 225 .68 213 .21 176 .08 272 .55 59 .25 137 .62 210 .87 203 .38 207 .38 153 .81 225 .81 308 .31 182 .27  % change 79. 39731 62. 25902 71.28 79. 89637 68. 10691 59. 16116 59. 23697 41. 07142 41. 62807 58. 25140 79. 48989 100 .8912 36. 45315 38. 88308 95. 34309  Length initial 16. 37 19 .1 20 .5 18 .8 18 .9 18 .5 21 .8 13 .3 17 .6 20 .1 19 .8 18 .1 18 .7 21 .1 21 .6  sample 20 .4 22 .8 24 .6 23 .1 23 21 .9 25 .4 15 .4 20 .3 23 .4 23 .9 22 .6 21 24 .2 26 .4 20 .9  % change 24 .61820 19 .37172 20 22 .87234 21 .69312 18 .37837 16 .51376 15 .78947 15 .34090 16 .41791 20 .70707 24 .86187 12 .29946 14 .69194 22 .22222  A v e r a g e 119.1166 196.1206 64.75660 18.95133 22.45625 19.05189 S.D. 32.12609 56.29581 19.37769 2.092070 2.489972 3.678371 Feeding Tank 5 Tank 7  initial 5830.26 6191.06  108  % change  Total  feed/day  207.6 17933.87 896.6939 64.8 10202.86 510.1433  (g)  Experiment 2: Sample 6 November 23, 1988 Group A  •# 656 662 666 670 671 676 679 680 681 685 687 688 689 694 697  Weight initial 163.8 147.68 115.5 120.05 128.71 76.47 142.6 128.98 72.65 139.38 115.3 93.98 169.92 120.68 69.72  sample 402.52 534.92 415.19 329.11 504.98 313.45 471.91 314.38 344.91 586.31 202.32 290.31 606.79 710.39 261.39  % change  Length initial  145 .7387 262 .2156 259 .4718 174 .1441 292 .3393 309 .8993 230 .9326 143 .7432 374 .7556 320 .6557 75. 47267 208 .9061 257 .1033 488 .6559 274 .9139  20.7 20.7 19.4 19.2 20.2 16.5 20.3 19.7 17 19.9 18.38 17.1 21.5 19.8 16.5  sample 27.6 31 28.5 25.4 30.3 24.6 28.3 25.3 26.4 29.2 22.5 22.8 31.6 32.1 24.4  % change *  33 .33333 49 .75845 46 .90721 32 .29166 50 49 .09090 39 .40886 28 .42639 55 .29411 46 .73366 22 .41566 33 .33333 46 .97674 62 .12121 47 .87878  age 120.3613 419.2586 254 .5965 19.12533 27.33333 42 .93135 30.11348 140.4963 97. 95022 1.582377 3.030438 10 .54467  .  1  109  Group B Tag  # 605 614 617 619 627 628 629 631 635 636 639 641 642 644 648 750 752 753 757  Avg S.D.  Weight initial 75. 33 117. 75 125. 35 137 .5 125. 45 131. 05 126. 83 171. 16 106. 73 106; . i 97. 17 100. 52 133. 25 113. 31 112. 72 124. 81 157. 83 160. 98 112. 35  sample  % change  182. 272. 318. 319. 301. 282. 318. 330. 248. 174. 187. 195. 263. 273. 216. 263. 428. 455. 235.  142.0151 131.4904 154.3199 132.4945 140.0239 115.2689 151.1314 93.19350 132.9991 64.63713 93.01224 94.17031 98.05628 141.1790 91.88254 111.3452 171.2475 182.7245 109.2656  31 58 79 68 11 11 51 67 68 68 55 18 91 28 29 78 11 13 11  Length initial 16.7 19.1 19.9 20.5 18.8 19.8 18.9 21.8 18.2 18.8 17.6 17.8 20 19.8 18.7 19.3 21.6 21 17.6  sample 21 .7 24 25 .7 25 .6 23 .9 23 .8 24 .4 26 .9 22 .9 21 .5 21 .3 21 .5 24 .5 25 .3 22 .1 24 .1 27 .5 28 .8 21 .9  % change 29. 25. 29. 24. 27. 20. 29. 23. 25. 14. 21. 20. 27. 18. 24. 27. 37. 24.  94011 65445 14572 87804 12765 20202 10052 39449 82417 36170 02272 78651 22.5 77777 18181 87046 31481 14285 43181  122.9573 277.2347 123.7082 19.25789 24.07368 24. 92935 22.61857 74.01842 29.82537 1.342548 2.121529 4.866129  Feeding  initial  Tank 5 Tank 7  5830.26 6191.06  110  % change  Total  feed/day  254.6 20674.10 1033.705 123.7 13849.40 692.4700 (Starvation)  (g)  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097557/manifest

Comment

Related Items