Growth and Body Composition of Juvenile Hybrid Bluegill Lepomis cyanellus × L. macrochirus Fed Practical Diets Containing Various Percentages of Protein

Growth, survival, and body composition were evaluated in two feeding trials using juvenile hybrid bluegill Lepomis cyanellus × L. macrochirus . In Experiment 1, hybrid bluegill (20 g) were stocked into 1.25-m³ cages at a rate of 300 fish/cage and fed diets containing 35, 40, 44, or 48% protein for 12 wk. Fish meal comprised 32% of the dietary protein in all diets. Fish were fed all they could consume in 40 min. No significant differences ( P > 0.05) in individual length, individual weight, specific growth rate (SGR), condition factor (K), and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were found among treatments and averaged 13.4 cm, 47.4 g, 1.02%/d, 1.96, and 4.06, respectively. Whole-body composition of hybrid bluegill indicated that fish fed a diet containing 35% protein had a significantly lower ( P < 0.05) percentage protein (56.3%) and a higher ( P < 0.05) percentage lipid (29.3%) compared to fish fed diets containing 40, 44, and 48% protein. In Experiment 2, 15 hybrid bluegill (15 g) were stocked into 110-L aquaria and fed one of four diets containing 28, 32, 36, or 38% protein for 10 wk. Fish were fed twice daily all they would consume in 20 min. Fish fed a diet containing 38% protein had higher ( P < 0.05) percentage weight gain (265%) than fish fed diets containing 28% (203%) and 32% (219%) protein, but were not significantly different ( P > 0.05) compared to fish fed a diet containing 36% protein (251%). Feed conversion ratio (FCR) of hybrid bluegill fed diets containing 36% and 38% protein (average 1.39) were significantly lower ( P < 0.05) than fish fed a diet with 28% protein (1.73). Results from these studies indicate that hybrid bluegill can be fed a practical diet containing 35–36% protein (with fish meal comprising 32% of the protein). Further refinement of the diet formulation may allow producers to reduce diet and production costs.     

Apiculture and forestry (bees and trees)

Honey bees are found associated with forests globally. Flowers of forest trees provide subsistence for honey bees and the trees physically provide shelter for a swarm or bee hive. Forest management and beekeeping have each had a long history both in the United States and globally, but have seldom been integrated or studied in a systematic fashion. Purposeful plantings of trees, as in agroforestry systems, could be designed to favor bee forage or hive protection.Tree growing and beekeeping can easily be combined for several reasons. Both are sustainable on land that is hilly or otherwise less desirable for other agricultural purposes. Both require labor intermittently, and can be sustained while the grower/beekeeper is busy with other farming occupations. Bee hives require very little space, while the bees themselves can forage in a radius of 4 to 5 km. Hives may be located within or near a tree plantation, and utilize both the trees and surrounding other flowering plants for forage. Combining forestry and beekeeping provides annual honey bee products (e.g. honey, beeswax) to supplement income from a landowner's long term forest managements. In areas like Kentucky, where more than half of the forest landowners own 4 ha or less of commercially valuable woodland, it is important to produce economic benefit from those lands without harvesting all the trees. Combining bees and trees is one way of accomplishing this goal. This paper addresses several important known bee-tree interactions which need more systematic study.     

Cycle‐Characteristic Odour of Cow Urine Can Be Detected by the Female Face Fly (Musca autumnalis)

Due to declining dairy cow fertility rates, there is great interest in developing tools for oestrus detection. Compounds in the volatile profile of oestrous cows are suggested as oestrus‐specific, but consistent results have not been presented. Certain haematophagous arthropods can discriminate stages of the mammalian reproductive cycle based on host volatiles. This study investigated whether the face fly, Musca autumnalis de Geer (Diptera: Muscidae), can discriminate between urine from cows in oestrus and urine collected during the luteal phase. Individual flies were tested in a two‐choice behavioural assay with choice between odour of oestrous or luteal urine and water (control). Flies chose the control arm significantly more when exposed to oestrous urine than when exposed to luteal urine. Analysis of volatiles showed that 1‐hexadecanol (cetyl alcohol) was released in greater amounts from oestrous urine than from urine collected during the luteal phase. In a dose response assay, flies were significantly attracted by 0.01 ng of 1‐hexadecanol but significantly repelled by 0.1 ng, a pattern consistent with fly responses to urine. In conclusion, M. autumnalis can discriminate between oestrous and luteal urine, and this may be mediated by differences in 1‐hexadecanol concentration.