An experimental ration consisting of 50% full-fat soybeans, heated 170°C, was compared to a commercial trout chow in a 120-day feeding trial using two stocks of channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus Rafinesque. Catfish were reared in 0.9 m³ floating cages, with 200 fish per cage, anchored in a 1.5 hectare farm pond. A Central Arkansas stock significantly outperformed a Southeast Arkansas stock for comparisons of net production and food conversion efficiency (FCE), with 92% greater production and 41% better FCE, respectively. Survival was 90% or greater for all fish. There was no significant difference in dress-out weight between the stocks. However, the catfish fed the trout ration had significantly lower amounts of body fat. The commercial trout chow overall was significantly better for fish production than the full-fat soybean ration. Production with trout chow was 84% greater than with the full-fat soybean ration. Food conversion efficiency was nearly 41% better with the trout ration, while percent body fat was 11% less. There were no differences in percent survival and percent dress-out weight between the rations. The Central Arkansas stock fed the commercial trout ration had the lowest production cost of 0.47¢ per 0.45 kg live weight, while the Southeastern stock had a higher production cost with either feed

Haskins, Calvin J.

Newton, Scott H.

Robison, Walter R.

English

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 34 Article 25 1980 Evaluation of a Full-Fat Soybean Ration for Channel Catfish Production in Cages Scott H. Newton University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Walter R. Robison University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Calvin J. Haskins University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation Newton, Scott H.; Robison, Walter R.; and Haskins, Calvin J. (1980) "Evaluation of a Full-Fat Soybean Ration for Channel Catfish Production in Cages," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 34 , Article 25. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol34/iss1/25 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol.XXXIV,198084"E^TT" A T TT A T^T/"\^T /""\"E^ A "CTTT T "C A T^ P/"\^yi">TTi A "\TJL \J\Lj\JJ\ 11U1N yJr J\ rULjLt-rJ\L OUIr>Jjj/\lNRATION FOR CHANNEL CATFISHPRODUCTION INCAGES*SCOTT H. NEWTON, WALTER R. ROBISON and CALVIN J. HASKINSDepartment ofAgriculture, University ofArkansas at Pine Bluff71601ABSTRACTAn experimental ration consisting of50% full-fat soybeans, heated 170°C, was compared toa commercial trout chow in a 120-day feeding trial using two stocks of channel catfish, Ictalu-rus punctatus Rafinesque. Catfish were reared in0.9 m1floating cages, with 200 fish per cage,anchored in a 1.5 hectare farm pond. A Central Arkansas stock significantly outperformed aSoutheast Arkansas stock for comparisons of net production and food conversion efficiency(FCE), with 92% greater production and 41% better FCE, respectively. Survival was 90% orgreater for all fish. There was no significant difference indress-out weight between the stocks.However, the catfish fed the trout ration had significantly lower amounts ofbody fat. The com-mercial trout chow overall was significantly better for fish production than the full-fatsoybeanration. Production withtrout chow was 84% greater than withthe full-fat soybean ration. Foodconversion efficiency was nearly 41% better withthe trout ration, while percent body fat was11% less. There were no differences in percent survival and percent dress-out weight betweenthe rations. The Central Arkansas stock fed the commercial trout ration had the lowest produc-tion cost of 0.47$ per 0.45 kg liveweight, while the Southeastern stock had a higher productioncost witheither feed.INTRODUCTIONCage culture of fishes has been practiced in Asia since the earlypart of this century (Hickling, 1962), but it has been during the past six-eight years that intensive cage culture operations have become feasiblefor channel catfish (Kilambiet al., 1977; Newton and Merkowsky,1977). This has been due largely to the development of highprotein,nutritionally complete diets. Caged catfish culture ration studies havebeen conducted at UAPB since 1975 (Newton and Merkowsky,1976). Most diets forcaged catfish culture have consisted of highper-centages of animal proteins withlittle utilization of vegetable pro-teins. High percentages of animal proteins increase production costsof complete rations. Inan attempt toreduce protein ingredient costs,researchers have attempted to substitute vegetable proteins forsomeof the animal proteins. Soybeans has been one of the major substitutesconsidered inreducing the amount ofanimal proteins. The chemicalcomposition of soybeans and their amino acid profile rank them asone of the better plant products for consideration in fish diets. How-ever, soybeans that are not heat-treated are not completely utilizedby monogastric animals (Smith, 1977). Brandt (1979) determined thatheat treating soybeans to 170°C destroyed growthinhibitors (hemag-glutinins, goitrogens, protease inhibitors). His studies at the StuttgartFish Farming Experimental Station have indicated that in pondculture, properly heat-treated soybeans ina balanced diet providedgood growth, production, and survival forchannel catfish.The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the performance ofcaged channel catfish fed a 50% full-fatheat-treated soybean ration,and (2) to compare two catfish stocks' performance fed the soybeanration and a commercial trout ration.METHODS AND MATERIALSCatfish fingerlings were obtained from Central and Southeast Ar-kansas representing two stocks ofchannel catfish. Floating cages (0.9m1) were anchored ina 1.5 hectare farm pond at the UAPB Agricul-ture Experiment Station (Newton and Merkowsky, 1976). Fingerlingswere stocked at the rate of seven fishper 28.3 dm 3(200 fish per cage).Each stock of catfish was fedboth the commercial trout ration (TC-36% protein) and a 50% full-fat soybean ration (FFS-36% protein)'Published with the approval of the Director of the Arkansas Agri-culture Experiment Station.formulated by Brandt (pers. commj. Experimental conditions weretriplicated for fish stocks and rations. The 50% full-fat soybean ra-tion was prepared by the Kansas State University Department ofGrain Science and Industry, Manhattan, under the supervision ofDr.Keith Behnke. The experimental ration formula is on file in theUAPB Fisheries Library.Fish were placed in the cages and preconditioned for five daysbefore the experiment was initiated 24 April 1979. The catfish werefed six days per week fora total of 120 feeding days. Allfish were fed3% of their estimated body weight according to a schedule that wasadjusted bimonthly based upon a 1.5:1 feed conversion ratio.Periodic samples were taken of at least 10% of the population tocheck forgrowth and to adjust the feeding schedule.On 19 September, all fish were harvested and the total number andtotal weight were recorded foreach cage. A10% random sample ofthe fish was used to determine dress-out percentage, the portion ofafish available formarket sale, and percent body fat, mesenteric fat ofindividual fish.Both rations were tested for physical characteristics of size,number, percent moisture, and floatability. Average number ofpellets per ten grams and average sizes were determined from tensamples of each ration. Percent moisture was determined from threesamples of each ration with a Blue Mdrying oven at 100°C for48 hr.Floatability was tested ina751 aquarium. A300 pellet sample of eachration was placed in the aquarium with a water temperature of27.6°C and observed for two hours. The pellets were then checked atthe end of 24 hr and floating pellets counted. Significant differencesamong net production, survival, percent dress-out, percent body fat,physical characteristics of the feed, and average weight of the fishwere tested by factorial analysis (Steel and Tome, 1960). Allstatisti-cal tests were compared at the 0.05 level ofsignificance.RESULTS ANDDISCUSSIONThere were no significant differences among the mean diameter pel-let size (9.5 mm), percent moisture (9.9), or floatability (99%) be-tween the two rations. However, there was a significant difference inthe number of pellets per sample (TOFFS = 1:1.5). The full-fatsoy-bean pellets were 34% bulkier. Lovell (1977) noted that a bulkyration may be disadvantageous forgood channel catfish growth. Thusdecrease ingrowth may be accounted forbecause the catfish do notconsume enough feed to meet their nutritional requirements. Itwas84Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 34 [1980], Art. 25Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1980Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol.XXXIV,198085)bserved that the caged catfish routinely consumed all pellets within!0minutes after feeding.The Central Arkansas stock, compared to the Southeastern stock,had a significantly higher average net production and food conver-sion efficiency forboth rations (Table 1).The Central Arkansas stockhad a 92% greater net production than the Southeastern stock whenfed the trout ration, and a 99% greater net production when fed thefull-fat soybean ration. Comparisons between feeds revealed thatboth stocks had 84% increased production with the trout ration thanwiththe soybean ration.(There was no significant difference in survival between the twotocks for either ration. The Central Arkansas stock produced aarger average-sized fish witheither ration (Table 1). The trout rationiroduced the better average weight gain forboth stocks.There was no significant difference in the percent dress-out weightbetween the two stocks; however, there was a significant differenceInthe amount of mesenteric fat inthe body cavity of the fishbetweenthe two feeds (Table 2). Catfish fed the trout ration had 11% lessmesentric fat. Brandt (1979) found that catfish, inopen ponds, fed a50% full-fat soybean ration had a body fat percentage of 2.93. Thatamount of fat was significantly lower than our average of 5.67%.Some of the difference may be due either to the culture methods orto the heat processing of the full-fat soybeans.A cost analysis (Table 3) indicated that the Central Arkansas stockfed the commercial trout ration was the better caged catfish/rationcombination. Only marginal profit was obtained with the Central Ar-kansas stock fed the soybean ration. Net losses occurred for theSoutheastern stock with both rations. Total cost to produce 0.45 kgof flesh ranged from a low of 47 cents for the Central Arkansas stockfed trout chow to ahigh of90 cents forthe Southeastern stock fed thefull-fatsoybean ration.Overall comparisons, indeed, indicated that the trout ration wasbetter for production of channel catfish incages. Poor fishperform-ance with the full-fatsoybean ration could have been due to improp-er heat treatment of the raw soybeans. Improper heat treatment ofsoybeans would prevent adequate fish utilization of essential proteinsand vitamins (Brandt, 1979). This may account for the poor perform-ance ofboth catfish stocks with the full-fat soybean ration incages asTable 1. Survival, average net production, F.C.E., and individualgains for two channel catfish stocks fed tworations.SSSEi nation product 1»| per cane (la) F.C.E. survival Initial Harvest (,)'Central TC 69.57 a y 1.90 a 89 a 21 a 422 a 594 aArkansas ITS 38.25 b 2.90 b 90 a 2« a .'40 b 212 bSoutheastern TC 36.27 c 2.68 c 9S a 28 a 200 c 172 c'Means followed by different letters are significantly different at the0.05 level.Table 2. Comparison of marketable qualities between two catfishstocks fedafull-fat soybean and trout ration.Central Arkansas TC 4.OS a A' 60.39 aSoutheastern Arkansas TC 3.64 a 5? 87 aFFS 5.37 b 'A.b%a'Means followed by different letters are significantly different at theTable 3. Cost analysis on aper cage basis for two stocks of channelc. . Feed co*t Fingcrling Harvest price Weight harvested Ration Net=*"* Ration per kg cost per kg (kg) cost profit?Wtf»eMtem TC (0.55 $12.00 11.43 J7.99 $52.02 -S 9.67Arkansas FFS $0.42 $12.00 $1.43 17.3S $38.17 -$15.64compared toprevious feeding trials in open ponds. Further researchmay aid in establishing better quality control during soybean heattreatment processing. Inaddition, research needs to be conducted tofurther define the value of utilizing full-fat soybeans as a primarysubstitute foranimal proteins in channel catfish rations.The large significant difference in production performance be-tween the two catfish stocks was puzzling. Broussard (1979) notedthat wild strains of catfish did notperform as well as more domesti-cated strains in ponds or cages. The "wilder" the stock, the poorerthe production inconfined culture. The Southeastern stock appearstobe a"wilder" stock than the Central Arkansas stock because of dif-ferences in cultural practices, management techniques, and totaltime of domestication. The Southeastern stock has been maintainedby open-pond spawning with minimal selective breeding manage-ment. Also, that stock has undergone domestication over a relativelyshorter time period. The Central Arkansas stock has been domesti-cated for alonger period and subjected tointensive cultural manage-ment practices (hatchery spawning, selective breeding, etc.).ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSAppreciation is extended toDr.Tom Brandt for histechnical assistance in formulating the experimentalfull-fatsoybean diet and to Dr.KeithBehnke for his as-sistance inpreparation of the ration. We would alsolike to thank the Director and staff of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service Fish Farming Station at Stuttgart fortheir technical advisory assistance.LITERATURE CITEDBRANDT,THOMAS M. 1979. Use of heat-treated full-fat soybeansinchannel catfish and golden shiner feeds. Presented Texas FishFarming Conference, Texas A&MUniversity, College Station,Texas (Inpress).BROUSSARD, MERYLC, JR. 1979. The evaluation of four strainsof channel catfish and crosses between strains under fishcultureconditions. Research Workshop Summary of Papers. CatfishFarmers of America Annual Meeting and Trade Show. Jan. 31-Feb. 3,Jackson, Mississippi.HICKLING,C. F. 1962. Fish Culture. Faber and Faber, London.295 p.KILAMBI,R. V., J. C. ADAMS, A. V. BROWN and W. A.WICKIZER. 1977. Affects of stocking density and cage size ongrowth, feed conversion, and production of rainbow trout andchannel catfish. Prog. Fish-Cult. 39(2):62-66.LOVELL,R.T.1978. Factors affecting voluntary food consumptiononchannel catfish. Berlin, 1:555-564.NEWTON, SCOTT H. and ANDREW W. MERKOWSKY. 1976.Using lights to attract insects forcaged catfish. Ark.Farm Res.J. 25(3):8.NEWTON, SCOTT H. and ANDREW J. MERKOWSKY. 1977.Attracting insects as supplemental food forchannel catfish: Atwo-season evaluation. Ark.Farm. Res. J. 26(3):9.NEWTON, SCOTT H. and JAN C. DEAN. 1978. Evaluation of tworations fed to caged channel catfish. Ark.Farm Res. J. 27(3):6.SMITH, ROBERT R. 1977. Recent research involving full-fat soy-bean meal insalmonid diets. Salmonid, 24(6):8-ll,18.STEEL, R.G.D.and TORRIE, J. H. 1960. Principles and Proceduresof Statistics; with Special Reference to the Biological Sciences.McGraw-Hill,N.Y.,N.Y., 481 p.85Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 34 [1980], Art. 25https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol34/iss1/25

Evaluation of a Full-Fat Soybean Ration for Channel Catfish Production in Cages

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 34 Article 251980Evaluation of a Full-Fat Soybean Ration forChannel Catfish Production in CagesScott H. NewtonUniversity of Arkansas at Pine BluffWalter R. RobisonUniversity of Arkansas at Pine BluffCalvin J. HaskinsUniversity of Arkansas at Pine BluffFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Aquaculture and Fisheries CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academyof Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu, ccmiddle@uark.edu.Recommended CitationNewton, Scott H.; Robison, Walter R.; and Haskins, Calvin J. (1980) "Evaluation of a Full-Fat Soybean Ration for Channel CatfishProduction in Cages," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 34 , Article 25.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol34/iss1/25Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol.XXXIV,198084"E^TT" A T TT A T^T/"\^T /""\"E^ A "CTTT T "C A T^ P/"\^yi">TTi A "\TJL \J\Lj\JJ\ 11U1N yJr J\ rULjLt-rJ\L OUIr>Jjj/\lNRATION FOR CHANNEL CATFISHPRODUCTION INCAGES*SCOTT H. NEWTON, WALTER R. ROBISON and CALVIN J. HASKINSDepartment ofAgriculture, University ofArkansas at Pine Bluff71601ABSTRACTAn experimental ration consisting of50% full-fat soybeans, heated 170°C, was compared toa commercial trout chow in a 120-day feeding trial using two stocks of channel catfish, Ictalu-rus punctatus Rafinesque. Catfish were reared in0.9 m1floating cages, with 200 fish per cage,anchored in a 1.5 hectare farm pond. A Central Arkansas stock significantly outperformed aSoutheast Arkansas stock for comparisons of net production and food conversion efficiency(FCE), with 92% greater production and 41% better FCE, respectively. Survival was 90% orgreater for all fish. There was no significant difference indress-out weight between the stocks.However, the catfish fed the trout ration had significantly lower amounts ofbody fat. The com-mercial trout chow overall was significantly better for fish production than the full-fatsoybeanration. Production withtrout chow was 84% greater than withthe full-fat soybean ration. Foodconversion efficiency was nearly 41% better withthe trout ration, while percent body fat was11% less. There were no differences in percent survival and percent dress-out weight betweenthe rations. The Central Arkansas stock fed the commercial trout ration had the lowest produc-tion cost of 0.47$ per 0.45 kg liveweight, while the Southeastern stock had a higher productioncost witheither feed.INTRODUCTIONCage culture of fishes has been practiced in Asia since the earlypart of this century (Hickling, 1962), but it has been during the past six-eight years that intensive cage culture operations have become feasiblefor channel catfish (Kilambiet al., 1977; Newton and Merkowsky,1977). This has been due largely to the development of highprotein,nutritionally complete diets. Caged catfish culture ration studies havebeen conducted at UAPB since 1975 (Newton and Merkowsky,1976). Most diets forcaged catfish culture have consisted of highper-centages of animal proteins withlittle utilization of vegetable pro-teins. High percentages of animal proteins increase production costsof complete rations. Inan attempt toreduce protein ingredient costs,researchers have attempted to substitute vegetable proteins forsomeof the animal proteins. Soybeans has been one of the major substitutesconsidered inreducing the amount ofanimal proteins. The chemicalcomposition of soybeans and their amino acid profile rank them asone of the better plant products for consideration in fish diets. How-ever, soybeans that are not heat-treated are not completely utilizedby monogastric animals (Smith, 1977). Brandt (1979) determined thatheat treating soybeans to 170°C destroyed growthinhibitors (hemag-glutinins, goitrogens, protease inhibitors). His studies at the StuttgartFish Farming Experimental Station have indicated that in pondculture, properly heat-treated soybeans ina balanced diet providedgood growth, production, and survival forchannel catfish.The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the performance ofcaged channel catfish fed a 50% full-fatheat-treated soybean ration,and (2) to compare two catfish stocks' performance fed the soybeanration and a commercial trout ration.METHODS AND MATERIALSCatfish fingerlings were obtained from Central and Southeast Ar-kansas representing two stocks ofchannel catfish. Floating cages (0.9m1) were anchored ina 1.5 hectare farm pond at the UAPB Agricul-ture Experiment Station (Newton and Merkowsky, 1976). Fingerlingswere stocked at the rate of seven fishper 28.3 dm 3(200 fish per cage).Each stock of catfish was fedboth the commercial trout ration (TC-36% protein) and a 50% full-fat soybean ration (FFS-36% protein)'Published with the approval of the Director of the Arkansas Agri-culture Experiment Station.formulated by Brandt (pers. commj. Experimental conditions weretriplicated for fish stocks and rations. The 50% full-fat soybean ra-tion was prepared by the Kansas State University Department ofGrain Science and Industry, Manhattan, under the supervision ofDr.Keith Behnke. The experimental ration formula is on file in theUAPB Fisheries Library.Fish were placed in the cages and preconditioned for five daysbefore the experiment was initiated 24 April 1979. The catfish werefed six days per week fora total of 120 feeding days. Allfish were fed3% of their estimated body weight according to a schedule that wasadjusted bimonthly based upon a 1.5:1 feed conversion ratio.Periodic samples were taken of at least 10% of the population tocheck forgrowth and to adjust the feeding schedule.On 19 September, all fish were harvested and the total number andtotal weight were recorded foreach cage. A10% random sample ofthe fish was used to determine dress-out percentage, the portion ofafish available formarket sale, and percent body fat, mesenteric fat ofindividual fish.Both rations were tested for physical characteristics of size,number, percent moisture, and floatability. Average number ofpellets per ten grams and average sizes were determined from tensamples of each ration. Percent moisture was determined from threesamples of each ration with a Blue Mdrying oven at 100°C for48 hr.Floatability was tested ina751 aquarium. A300 pellet sample of eachration was placed in the aquarium with a water temperature of27.6°C and observed for two hours. The pellets were then checked atthe end of 24 hr and floating pellets counted. Significant differencesamong net production, survival, percent dress-out, percent body fat,physical characteristics of the feed, and average weight of the fishwere tested by factorial analysis (Steel and Tome, 1960). Allstatisti-cal tests were compared at the 0.05 level ofsignificance.RESULTS ANDDISCUSSIONThere were no significant differences among the mean diameter pel-let size (9.5 mm), percent moisture (9.9), or floatability (99%) be-tween the two rations. However, there was a significant difference inthe number of pellets per sample (TOFFS = 1:1.5). The full-fatsoy-bean pellets were 34% bulkier. Lovell (1977) noted that a bulkyration may be disadvantageous forgood channel catfish growth. Thusdecrease ingrowth may be accounted forbecause the catfish do notconsume enough feed to meet their nutritional requirements. Itwas84Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 34 [1980], Art. 25Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1980Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol.XXXIV,198085)bserved that the caged catfish routinely consumed all pellets within!0minutes after feeding.The Central Arkansas stock, compared to the Southeastern stock,had a significantly higher average net production and food conver-sion efficiency forboth rations (Table 1).The Central Arkansas stockhad a 92% greater net production than the Southeastern stock whenfed the trout ration, and a 99% greater net production when fed thefull-fat soybean ration. Comparisons between feeds revealed thatboth stocks had 84% increased production with the trout ration thanwiththe soybean ration.(There was no significant difference in survival between the twotocks for either ration. The Central Arkansas stock produced aarger average-sized fish witheither ration (Table 1). The trout rationiroduced the better average weight gain forboth stocks.There was no significant difference in the percent dress-out weightbetween the two stocks; however, there was a significant differenceInthe amount of mesenteric fat inthe body cavity of the fishbetweenthe two feeds (Table 2). Catfish fed the trout ration had 11% lessmesentric fat. Brandt (1979) found that catfish, inopen ponds, fed a50% full-fat soybean ration had a body fat percentage of 2.93. Thatamount of fat was significantly lower than our average of 5.67%.Some of the difference may be due either to the culture methods orto the heat processing of the full-fat soybeans.A cost analysis (Table 3) indicated that the Central Arkansas stockfed the commercial trout ration was the better caged catfish/rationcombination. Only marginal profit was obtained with the Central Ar-kansas stock fed the soybean ration. Net losses occurred for theSoutheastern stock with both rations. Total cost to produce 0.45 kgof flesh ranged from a low of 47 cents for the Central Arkansas stockfed trout chow to ahigh of90 cents forthe Southeastern stock fed thefull-fatsoybean ration.Overall comparisons, indeed, indicated that the trout ration wasbetter for production of channel catfish incages. Poor fishperform-ance with the full-fatsoybean ration could have been due to improp-er heat treatment of the raw soybeans. Improper heat treatment ofsoybeans would prevent adequate fish utilization of essential proteinsand vitamins (Brandt, 1979). This may account for the poor perform-ance ofboth catfish stocks with the full-fat soybean ration incages asTable 1. Survival, average net production, F.C.E., and individualgains for two channel catfish stocks fed tworations.SSSEi nation product 1»| per cane (la) F.C.E. survival Initial Harvest (,)'Central TC 69.57 a y 1.90 a 89 a 21 a 422 a 594 aArkansas ITS 38.25 b 2.90 b 90 a 2« a .'40 b 212 bSoutheastern TC 36.27 c 2.68 c 9S a 28 a 200 c 172 c'Means followed by different letters are significantly different at the0.05 level.Table 2. Comparison of marketable qualities between two catfishstocks fedafull-fat soybean and trout ration.Central Arkansas TC 4.OS a A' 60.39 aSoutheastern Arkansas TC 3.64 a 5? 87 aFFS 5.37 b 'A.b%a'Means followed by different letters are significantly different at theTable 3. Cost analysis on aper cage basis for two stocks of channelc. . Feed co*t Fingcrling Harvest price Weight harvested Ration Net=*"* Ration per kg cost per kg (kg) cost profit?Wtf»eMtem TC (0.55 $12.00 11.43 J7.99 $52.02 -S 9.67Arkansas FFS $0.42 $12.00 $1.43 17.3S $38.17 -$15.64compared toprevious feeding trials in open ponds. Further researchmay aid in establishing better quality control during soybean heattreatment processing. Inaddition, research needs to be conducted tofurther define the value of utilizing full-fat soybeans as a primarysubstitute foranimal proteins in channel catfish rations.The large significant difference in production performance be-tween the two catfish stocks was puzzling. Broussard (1979) notedthat wild strains of catfish did notperform as well as more domesti-cated strains in ponds or cages. The "wilder" the stock, the poorerthe production inconfined culture. The Southeastern stock appearstobe a"wilder" stock than the Central Arkansas stock because of dif-ferences in cultural practices, management techniques, and totaltime of domestication. The Southeastern stock has been maintainedby open-pond spawning with minimal selective breeding manage-ment. Also, that stock has undergone domestication over a relativelyshorter time period. The Central Arkansas stock has been domesti-cated for alonger period and subjected tointensive cultural manage-ment practices (hatchery spawning, selective breeding, etc.).ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSAppreciation is extended toDr.Tom Brandt for histechnical assistance in formulating the experimentalfull-fatsoybean diet and to Dr.KeithBehnke for his as-sistance inpreparation of the ration. We would alsolike to thank the Director and staff of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service Fish Farming Station at Stuttgart fortheir technical advisory assistance.LITERATURE CITEDBRANDT,THOMAS M. 1979. Use of heat-treated full-fat soybeansinchannel catfish and golden shiner feeds. Presented Texas FishFarming Conference, Texas A&MUniversity, College Station,Texas (Inpress).BROUSSARD, MERYLC, JR. 1979. The evaluation of four strainsof channel catfish and crosses between strains under fishcultureconditions. Research Workshop Summary of Papers. CatfishFarmers of America Annual Meeting and Trade Show. Jan. 31-Feb. 3,Jackson, Mississippi.HICKLING,C. F. 1962. Fish Culture. Faber and Faber, London.295 p.KILAMBI,R. V., J. C. ADAMS, A. V. BROWN and W. A.WICKIZER. 1977. Affects of stocking density and cage size ongrowth, feed conversion, and production of rainbow trout andchannel catfish. Prog. Fish-Cult. 39(2):62-66.LOVELL,R.T.1978. Factors affecting voluntary food consumptiononchannel catfish. Berlin, 1:555-564.NEWTON, SCOTT H. and ANDREW W. MERKOWSKY. 1976.Using lights to attract insects forcaged catfish. Ark.Farm Res.J. 25(3):8.NEWTON, SCOTT H. and ANDREW J. MERKOWSKY. 1977.Attracting insects as supplemental food forchannel catfish: Atwo-season evaluation. Ark.Farm. Res. J. 26(3):9.NEWTON, SCOTT H. and JAN C. DEAN. 1978. Evaluation of tworations fed to caged channel catfish. Ark.Farm Res. J. 27(3):6.SMITH, ROBERT R. 1977. Recent research involving full-fat soy-bean meal insalmonid diets. Salmonid, 24(6):8-ll,18.STEEL, R.G.D.and TORRIE, J. H. 1960. Principles and Proceduresof Statistics; with Special Reference to the Biological Sciences.McGraw-Hill,N.Y.,N.Y., 481 p.85Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 34 [1980], Art. 25http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol34/iss1/25

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2659&context=jaas

Evaluation of a Full-Fat Soybean Ration for Channel Catfish Production in Cages

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UARK (University of Arkansas )

ScholarWorks@UARK