Table 3.
Growth performance of Nile tilapia1.
| Parameters2 | Diets | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CON | HSLF | HSMF | |
| IBW (g)3 | 168.63 ± 2.86 | 168.63 ± 2.75 | 168.47 ± 1.55 |
| FBW (g)3 | 502.03 ± 27.68b | 396.55 ± 9.68a | 497.19 ± 17.71b |
| WGR (%)3 | 197.62 ± 12.97b | 135.19 ± 6.69a | 195.17 ± 12.03b |
| FCR3 | 1.12 ± 0.04a | 1.55 ± 0.04b | 1.16 ± 0.08a |
| HSI (%)3 | 1.82 ± 0.03a | 1.96 ± 0.09ab | 2.02 ± 0.04b |
| MFI (%)3 | 2.14 ± 0.18a | 2.78 ± 0.07b | 2.52 ± 0.11b |
| VSI (%)3 | 8.05 ± 0.60a | 8.90 ± 0.58b | 9.25 ± 0.80b |
| CF (g/cm3) | 3.89 ± 0.07a | 3.78 ± 0.01a | 4.10 ± 0.03b |
Abbreviations: HSLF, high-starch-low-fat; HSMF, high-starch-moderate-fat; SD, standard deviation.
1Data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). Different superscript letters (a and b) within the same row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). Each row sharing the same superscript letter or absence of superscript are not significantly different (p > 0.05).
2IBW, initial body weight; FBW, final body weight; WGR, weight gain rate; CF, condition factor; FCR, feed conversion ratio; HSI, Hepatosomatic index, MFI, mesenteric fat index; VSI, viscerosomatic index.
3Data are originated from our preliminary findings [34] (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2025.102639).