B1090 Tables 13-17

Table 13. Mean of performance, dressout, and body composition data of channel catfish fed a 32% protein diet containing two animal protein supplements (Experiment 8).¹
					Fillet composition
Diet²	Weight gain³	FCR⁴	Survival	Carcass dressout	Visceral fat	Protein	Fat	Moisture	Ash
	lb/fish		%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Menhaden fish meal (8%)	0.61	1.33	99.9	62.2	3.4	17.0	6.2	75.1	1.2
Meat and bone/blood meal (8%)	0.59	1.36	100.1	61.9	3.4	16.0	5.8	75.8	1.2
¹Means were not different (P > 0.05). ²Digestible energy to protein ratios: diet with 8% menhaden fish meal, 8.8 kcal/g protein; and diet with 8% meat and bone/blood meal, 8.5 kcal/g protein. ³Mean initial weight was 100 pounds per 1,000 fish. Stocking rate was 10,000 fish per acre. The fish were fed to satiation once daily. ⁴Feed conversion ratio.

Table 14. Mean of performance, dressout, and body composition data of channel catfish fed diets with or without animal protein (Experiment 9).¹
						Fillet composition
Diet²	Weight gain³	Feed consumption	FCR⁴	Carcass dressout	Visceral fat	Protein	Fat	Moisture
	lb/fish	lb/fish		%	%	%	%	%
Animal protein	1.28	2.18	1.71	61.1	4.1 a	17.3	5.5	75.6
No animal protein	1.20	2.09	1.73	60.7	3.2 b	17.0	4.7	76.4
¹Means within a column followed by different letters were different (P < 0.05). ²Digestible energy to protein ratio of the diet containing animal protein was 9.1 kcal/g protein. For diets without animal protein, it was 8.8 kcal/g protein. ³Mean initial weight was 400 pounds per 1,000 fish. Stocking rate was 10,000 fish per acre. The fish were fed to satiation once daily. ⁴Feed conversion ratio.

Table 15. Mean of performance, dressout, and body composition data of channel catfish fed experimental diets (Experiment 10).
								Fillet composition
Dietary protein¹	Animal protein	Weight gain²	Feed consump tion³	FCR⁴	Survival	Dress out	Visceral fat	Protein	Fat	Moisture	Ash
%	%	lb/fish	lb/fish		%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Individual treatment means⁵
28	0	0.74	1.13	1.54	89.9	54.0	4.1	15.5	6.1 b	76.8	1.00
32	0	0.72	1.12	1.55	95.6	54.3	3.5	14.9	7.6 ab	75.6	0.96
28	8	0.78	1.15	1.47	93.7	53.2	4.0	14.7	8.6 a	74.6	1.01
32	8	0.74	1.05	1.43	95.0	53.7	2.6	15.6	6.3 b	76.4	0.99
Pooled means⁶
28		0.76	1.14	1.50	91.8	53.6	4.0 a	15.1	7.4	75.7	1.00
32		0.73	1.08	1.49	95.3	54.0	3.1 b	15.3	7.0	76.0	0.97
	0	0.73	1.13	1.55	92.8	54.2	3.8	15.2	6.9	76.2	0.98
	8	0.76	1.10	1.45	94.4	53.5	3.3	15.2	7.5	75.5	1.00
Analysis of variance⁷
Dietary protein	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	S	NS	NS	NS	NS
Animal Protein	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Interaction	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	S	NS	NS
¹Digestible energy to protein ratio of the 28% protein diet with animal protein was 10.1 kcal/g protein; without animal protein, 10.2 kcal/g. Digestible energy to protein ratio of the 32% protein diet with animal protein was 9.1 kcal/g protein; without animal protein, 9 kcal/g. ²Mean initial weight was 58 pounds per 1,000 fish. Stocking rate was 10,000 fish per acre. ³The fish were fed to satiation once daily. ⁴Feed conversion ratio. ⁵Means followed by different letters were different (P < 0.05, least significant difference test, LSD). The LSD test was not conducted for individual means if the interaction was not significant. ⁶Pooled means followed by different letters were different (P < 0.05, LSD test). The LSD test was not conducted for pooled means if the main effect was not significant (P > 0.05). ⁷S = significant (P < 0.05); NS = not significant (P > 0.05).

Table 16. Mean of performance data of channel catfish fed experimental diets (Experiment 11).
Dietary protein¹	Animal protein	Weight gain²	Feed consumption³	FCR⁴	Survival	Hematocrit
%	%	lb/fish	lb/fish		%	%
Individual treatment means⁵
26	0	0.84	1.20	1.42	95.0	28.6
26	2	0.84	1.31	1.54	97.9	24.3
26	4	0.89	1.33	1.51	99.0	24.7
26	6	0.85	1.31	1.54	96.1	26.5
28	0	0.86	1.30	1.52	97.2	25.1
28	2	0.85	1.27	1.49	97.7	26.0
28	4	0.90	1.31	1.46	96.0	24.9
28	6	0.88	1.28	1.46	98.8	25.8
32	0	0.87	1.34	1.53	97.0	25.3
32	2	0.96	1.43	1.48	97.4	26.5
32	4	0.89	1.32	1.49	98.8	23.8
32	6	0.85	1.30	1.53	99.3	26.3
Pooled means⁵
26		0.86	1.29	1.50	97.0	26.1
28		0.87	1.29	1.48	97.4	25.4
32		0.89	1.35	1.51	98.1	25.4
	0	0.86	1.28	1.49	96.4	26.3
	2	0.89	1.34	1.50	97.7	25.6
	4	0.89	1.32	1.48	97.9	24.5
	6	0.86	1.29	1.51	98.0	26.2
Analysis of variance⁷
Dietary protein		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Animal protein		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Interaction		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
¹Animal protein level did not affect the digestible energy to protein ratios. The ratio of the diet containing 26% protein was 10.9 kcal/g protein; 28%, 10.2 kcal/g; and 32%, 9 kcal/g. ²Mean initial weight was 152 pounds per 1,000 fish. Stocking rate was 10,000 fish per acre. ³The fish were fed to satiation once daily. ⁴Feed conversion ratio. ⁵Least significant difference (LSD) test was not conducted for individual means because the interaction was not significant. ⁶The LSD test was not conducted for pooled means because the main effect was not significant. ⁷NS = not significant (P > 0.05).

Table 17. Mean of dressout and body composition data of channel catfish fed experimental diets (Experiment 11).
					Fillet composition
Dietary protein	Animal protein	Carcass dressout	Visceral fat	Protein	Fat	Moisture	Ash
%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Individual treatment means²
26	0	55.8	3.3	16.4	7.6	74.3	1.11
26	2	54.9	3.5	16.0	7.0	75.8	1.10
26	4	55.3	3.5	15.8	6.8	75.0	1.11
26	6	55.6	3.9	16.9	7.2	74.3	1.05
28	0	56.0	3.3	15.7	6.2	76.1	1.12
28	2	56.9	3.2	16.6	6.8	75.0	1.10
28	4	56.6	3.5	17.0	6.5	75.3	1.11
28	6	55.8	3.5	17.4	6.4	74.8	1.10
32	0	56.2	3.0	17.2	6.1	75.6	1.13
32	2	56.1	2.8	16.3	5.5	76.6	1.12
32	4	56.9	2.9	17.6	6.7	74.4	1.11
32	6	56.1	2.9	17.4	5.1	75.9	1.06
Pooled means³
26		55.4 b	3.6 a	16.3	7.1 a	74.8	1.09
28		56.3 a	3.4 a	16.7	6.5 ab	75.3	1.11
32		56.3 a	2.9 b	17.2	5.8 b	75.6	1.11
	0	56.0	3.2	16.4	6.6	75.3	1.12
	2	56.0	3.2	16.3	6.4	75.8	1.11
	4	56.3	3.3	16.8	6.7	74.9	1.11
	6	55.8	3.4	17.2	6.2	75.0	1.07
Analysis of variance⁴
Dietary protein		S	S	NS	S	NS	NS
Animal protein		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Interaction		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
¹Digestible energy to protein (DE/P) ratios: 26% protein diet, 10.9 kcal/g protein; 28%, 10.2 kcal/g; and 32%, 9 kcal/g. Animal protein level did not affect the DE/P ratio of the diet. ²Least significant difference (LSD) test was not conducted for individual means because the interaction was not significant. ³Pooled means followed by different letters were different (P < 0.05, LSD test). The LSD test was not conducted for pooled means if the main effect was not significant (P > 0.05). ⁴S = significant (P < 0.05); NS = not significant (P > 0.05).

Catfish Protein Nutrition

Contents

Notice to User