Different diets in the first feeding of the yellow mandi (<em>Pimelodus maculates</em>, Lacépéde)
Abstract
One of the greatest problems in larviculture of native species is first feeding and cannibalism in the some species since the first day of life. This experiment aims at evaluating different diets in the first feeding of Pimelodus maculates, popularly known as the yellow mandi. Post-larvae were stocked in a density of 15 post-larvae/L, in 3 L-glass aquariums with artificial aeration. Treatments were composed of wild zooplankton in the proportion of 300 organisms/post-larvae/day (T1); 600 organisms/post-larvae/day (T2); 900 organisms/post-larvae/day (T3); 9 nauplii of Artemia/post-larvae/day (T4) and artificial microdiet between 150 and 250 µm (>50% PB) (T5). At the end of five days the Artemia treatment had the best survival values (39,3%) and the least rate of cannibalism (28,2%). Since it registered the best final weight and length (P < 0,05), the most appropriate handling in the feeding of the Pimelodus maculates was consequently demonstratedDownloads
Download data is not yet available.
Published
2008-05-09
How to Cite
Luz, R. K., & Zaniboni-Filho, E. (2008). Different diets in the first feeding of the yellow mandi (<em>Pimelodus maculates</em>, Lacépéde). Acta Scientiarum. Biological Sciences, 23, 483-489. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascibiolsci.v23i0.2704
Issue
Section
Biology Sciences
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY AND COPYRIGHTS
I Declare that current article is original and has not been submitted for publication, in part or in whole, to any other national or international journal.
The copyrights belong exclusively to the authors. Published content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) guidelines, which allows sharing (copy and distribution of the material in any medium or format) and adaptation (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, under the terms of attribution.
Read this link for further information on how to use CC BY 4.0 properly.
0.6
2019CiteScore
31st percentile
Powered by 
0.6
2019CiteScore
31st percentile
Powered by 