Scientific Papers Animal Science and Biotechnologies (Sep 2023)

Aspects Regarding the Influence of Growth Technology Concerning the Performances Production of the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss)

  • Daniel Cocan,
  • Vioara Mireşan,
  • Camelia Răducu,
  • Iulia Feştilă,
  • Aurelia Coroian,
  • Radu Constantinescu,
  • Octavian Negrea,
  • Rareş Ranga

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 45, no. 2
pp. 14 – 14

Abstract

Read online

Experiments were conducted throughout 2009 and 2010. At the beginning of experiments, both in 2009 and in 2010, were formed two groups (M-control group; E-experimental group), each group far 600 rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Control group M has been exploited in the Fiad trout farm, Bistriţa-Năsăud County, and the experimental group E was operated in a recirculating system arranged in Cluj-Napoca. Experiments were conducted over 210 days, both in 2009 and in 2010. Initial body weight of the specimens was 22.70±0.40 g – group M, and 22.68±0.39 – group E, in 2009. In the second experimental series (2010), the initial body weight of the rainbow trout specimens was 22.69±0.28 g – group M, respectively 22.56±0.31 g – group E. As factors which influencing directly the growth dynamic of rainbow trout, were monitored the physico-chemical parameters of water from the two locations, and feed consumption. Production performances of the trout from the two experimental groups, were assessed using as indicators total weight gain (TWG) and specific growth rate (SGR). In 2009, TWG=370.92±4.37 g – group E vs. 79.59±1.09 g – group M (p<0.001), and SGR=1.55±0.01 g/day – group E vs. 0.33±0.005 g/day – group M (p<0.001). In 2010, TWG=377.85±3.97 g – group E vs. 103.78±1.28 g – group M (p<0.001), and SGR=1.57±0.01 g/day – group E vs. 0.43±0.005 g/day – group M. Analyzing the two indicators (TWG and SGR), we can conclude that due to optimal environmental conditions provided by the recirculating system, the production performances of rainbow trout in both experimental series, were significantly higher in group E compared with group M.

Keywords