By—pmducts and wastes
85
250
"———I Control
x.-—-----———_k
1076 Substitution
:(
*-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—u 20% Substitution
,{1‘
/
//'l
/.’
200
/I/;.’
/»‘f
_/
a
// /’
/
,"
ë
/ ,—
â
/
.'
“
,“
/
U
{// /_/
Ë
// /'/I
‘”
150
/
â
/
û‘:
/
/'
2
X
,-"
â
//l
_/'
2
,
/
,/
//
I'K
/',.
100
'
0
25
50
75
TIME (DAYS)
Figure 1:
Mean Relative growth in carp fed processed piggery waste
(Watson 1985)
10%
20%
Control
Substitution
Substitution
Mean feed
a
a
a
.
conversion ratio
4.22(0.25)
3.54(0.20)
3.50(0.22)
Mean specific
a
b
ab
growth rate
_
0.91(0.03)
1.09(0.05)
1.08(0.07)
Apparent net protein
a
a
a
utilisation
(%)
42(3.0)
52(3.0)
52(4.0)
Protein
a
a
a
digestibility
46.28(6.17)
39.34(2.89)
42.51(6.03)
__________________________________________________________,_____________________
Superscript letters indicate homogenous subsets at the P<0.05 level.
Values
in brackets are standard errors of the means.
.
—
'
'
'
f
ar
fed
rocessed
ÏÊËlÊ_£- Mean growth and prote1n utilisation 0 c p
p
piggery waste (Watson 1985)-