Volume 44 Number 2 Summer 1997
|
|
Tom Lovell and M.K. Kim When
water temperature drops below about 68°F, channel catfish don't
gain weight economically; therefore, winter feeding is expensive and
inconvenient. Conventional wisdom has advocated feeding catfish through
winter months to keep the fish healthy and prevent weight loss. The
return on investment from winter feeding is difficult to identify because
of a lack of data on weight changes and feed efficiency with various
feeding schedules. An AAES study suggests that partial winter feeding—where
the fish are not fed during December, January and February—will
yield fish of almost equal harvest size in the spring as continuous
feeding throughout the winter. The fish were removed from the ponds the following spring and weight
change, feed conversion, body composition, and processing yield were
determined. Subsequently, fish from each of the over-winter treatments
were placed back into the ponds and fed for the following six-month
growing season to determine effects of the previous over-winter management
scheme on fish performance during the next grow-out period. The large fish on restricted feeding increased their weight by 41%
over winter (Table 1), which was only slightly less than that of the
continuously-fed large fish (48% increase). The large fish without winter
feed lost 10% of their initial weight. The relative weight changes for
the small fish showed a similar trend. Feed conversions were 1.6 for
fish on restricted feeding and over 2.0 for continuously-fed fish in
both size groups. Dressing yield for the food-size fish was not different
between the fed groups, but was significantly lower for the non-fed
fish. There were no significant losses to disease in any of the treatments. At the end of the subsequent grow-out season, the large fish overwintered
under the restricted feeding regime were slightly larger than those
that had been continuously fed; the fish not fed during winter gained
faster but did not quite reach the harvest weight of the other fish
(Table 2). The smaller fish showed essentially the same responses as
the large fish in relative weight changes. Feed conversions and dressing
yields were not statistically different among treatments within both
size groups. Lovell is a Distinguished University Professor and Kim is a former Doctoral Graduate Research Assistant of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures. |