Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:35:40.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of dietary protein level, and an anabolic steroid, ethylestrenol, on the growth, food conversion efficiency and protein efficiency ratio of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

B. W. Ince ,
K. P. Lone  and
A. J. Matty
B. W. Ince
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Aston, Gosta Green, Birmingham B4 7ET
K. P. Lone
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Aston, Gosta Green, Birmingham B4 7ET
A. J. Matty
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Aston, Gosta Green, Birmingham B4 7ET
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Three isoenergetic test diets containing 320, 430 and 530 g protein/kg, with (experimental) and without (control) inclusion of an anabolic steroid, ethylestrenol, were given to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) of mean initial weight 27 g, for 60 d.

2. After 60 d, all trout groups were given an identical, steroid-free, commercial diet (410 g protein/kg) for a further 30 d, to observe withdrawal effects on growth.

3. The weight and length of trout given the 430 and 530 g protein/kg control diets were significantly greater after 60 d than those given the 320 g protein/kg control diet.

4. Inclusion of steroid enhanced the weight and length of trout given the 320 and 430 g protein/kg experimental diets, exerting a preferential effect on weight as opposed to length.

5. After steroid withdrawal, a significant difference between the weight and length of the 320 g protein/kg control and experimental groups was still apparent.

6. An increase in dietary protein increased the food conversion efficiency, and decreased the protein efficiency ratio. Inclusion of steroid increased both these factors over the respective controls.

7. Protein assimilation decreased, and faecal nitrogen content increased with increasing dietary protein. In trout given steroid, protein assimilation and apparent digestibility was higher, and facecal N content, lower than the controls.

8. Muscle protein increased with increasing dietary protein, and was higher in trout given steroid.

9. Relative liver weight increased with increasing dietary protein. Inclusion of steroid resulted in a reduction in relative liver and gut weight, and an increase in kidney weight.

10. It is concluded that ethylestrenol promotes both the growth and efficiency of nutrient utilization of trout. The magnitude and duration of these effects are a function of the dietary protein level.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , May 1982 , pp. 615 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1975). Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 12th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Austreng, E. (1976). Meld. Nor. Landbrukshogsk 55, 1.Google Scholar
Bromley, P. J. & Smart, G. (1981). Aquaculture 23, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castell, J. D., Lee, D. J. & Sinnhuber, R. O. (1972). J. Nutr. 102, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowey, C. B. (1975). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 34, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowey, C. B., de la Higuera, M. & Adron, J. W. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowey, C. B. & Sargen, J. R. (1972). Adv. Mar. Biol. 10, 383.Google Scholar
Cowey, C. B. & Sargent, J. R. (1977). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 57A, 269.Google Scholar
Cowey, C. B. & Sargent, J. R. (1979). In Fish Physiology, vol. 8, p. 1 [Hoar, W. S., Randall, D. J. and Brett, J. R., editors]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, E. M., Fagerlund, V. H. M., Higgs, D. A. & McBride, J. R. (1979). In Fish Physiology, vol. 8, p. 455 [Hoar, W. S., Randall, D. J. and Brett, J. R., editors]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dupree, H. K., Gauglitz, E. J. Jr, Hall, A. S. & Houle, C. R. (1979). In Finfish Nutrition and Fishfeed Technology, vol. 2, p. 87 [Halver, J. E. and Tiews, K., editors]. Berlin: Heenemann Verlagsgesellschaft MbH.Google Scholar
Fagerlund, V. H. M., Higgs, D. A., McBride, J. R. (1979). In Finfish Nutrition and Fishfeed Technology, vol. 1, p. 221 [Halver, J. E. and Tiews, K., editors]. Berlin: Heenemann Verlagsgesellschaft MbH.Google Scholar
Fagerlund, V. H. M., Higgs, D. A., McBride, J. R., Plotnikoff, M. D. & Dosangh, B. S. (1980). Can. J. Zool. 58, 1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furukawa, A. & Tsukahara, H. (1966). Bull. Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish. 32, 502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halver, J. E. (ed.) (1972). Fish Nutrition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huisman, E. A. (1976). Aquaculture 9, 259.Google Scholar
Jobling, M. (1981). J. Fish Biol. 19, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochakian, C. D. (1977). Adv. Steroid Biochem. Pharmacol. 6, 1.Google Scholar
Lee, D. J. & Putnam, G. B. (1973). J. Nutr. 103, 916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lone, K. P. & Matty, A. J. (1980 a). Gen. Comp. Endocr. 40, 409.Google Scholar
Lone, K. P. & Matty, A. J. (1980 b). Pakistan J. Zool. 12, 47.Google Scholar
Lone, K. P. & Matty, A. J. (1981). J. Fish Biol. 18, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matty, A. J. & Cheema, I. R. (1978). Aquaculture 14, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matty, A. J. & Lone, K. P. (1979). Proc. Wld. Maricult. Soc. 10, 735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, A. M. (1969). In Fish Physiology, vol. 1, p. 391 [Hoar, W. S. and Randall, D. J., editors]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pieper, A. & Pfeffer, E. (1980). Aquaculture 20, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston Mercer, L., Watson, D. F. & Ramlet, J. S. (1981). J. Nutr. 111, 1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinitz, G. L. & Hitzel, F. N. (1980). Aquaculture 19, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinitz, G. L. & Yu, T. C. (1981). Aquaculture 22, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satia, B. P. (1974). Progr. Fish. Cult. 36, 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, T. H. (1976). Proc. R. Soc. (Edinburgh) 75B, 241.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. (1969). Biometry. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Yamazaki, F. (1976). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 33, 948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, T. C., Sinnhuber, R. O. & Hendricks, J. D. (1979). Aquaculture 16, 351.Google Scholar