Bu çalışma, üç deneme grubundan oluşmuştur. Bunlar yaş yem, pelet yem, yaş yem + pelet yemdir. Araştırmada kullanılan balıkların gruplara göre ortalama başlangıç ağırlıkları sırası ile 55.288+11.052 g (n= 80), 56.063+14.513 g (n= 80) ve 54.875±14.227 g (n= 80) olup, her grup iki tekerrürlü olarak tanklara yerleştirilmiştir. Çalışma 180 gün sürmüştür. Çalışma sonunda ortalama canlı ağırlıklar, gruplara göre, sırasıyla; 262.550+76.022 g (n=80), 341.400±61.659 (n= 80), 312.700±92.807 g (n= 80) olarak saptanmıştır. Spesifik büyüme oranları bakımından (yaş yemle besleme % 0.886, kuru yemle besleme % 1.004, yaş yem + kuru yemle besleme % 0.967) gruplar arasındaki farklılık önemsiz, yem değerlendirme değerleri (yaş yemle besleme 6.092, kuru yemle besleme 1.583, yaş yem + kuru yemle besleme 3.321) ve günlük yem tüketimleri (yaş yemle besleme % 4.912, kuru yemle besleme % 1.466, yaş yem + kuru yemle besleme % 2.927) bakımından ise önemli bulunmuştur (P

Possibility of feeding rainbow trout fOncorhynchus mykiss W., 1792) with fish longer by-products as an alternative feed source. In this study three experimental groups each two with replicates were used, first group feed with wet, second one dry and third one mixture of wet feed and dry feed. At the begining of the experiment mean weights of the fish according to groups were respectively 55.288+11.052 g (n= 80), 56.063+14.513 g (n= 80) and 54.875+14.227 g (n= 80). Study lasted 180 days (December 6, 1996-June 9, 1997). At the end of the study mean live weights were 262.550+76.022 (n= 80), 341.400+61.659 (n= 80) and 312.700±92.807 (n= 80) respectively. In term of spesific growth rates (first group feed with wet % 0.886, second one dry % 1.004 and third one mixture of wet feed and dry feed % 0.967), the differences among the groups were insignificant, but feed conversion ratio (first group feed with wet 6.092, second one dry 1.583 and third one mixture of wet feed and dry feed 3.321) and daily feed consumption (first group feed with wet % 4.912, second one dry % 1.466 and third one mixture of wet feed and dry feed % 2.927) were significant (P<0.01). When the groups were compared from economical point of view the most pavourable one was the wet feed group which were followed by mixed feed and dry feed groups. As a ratio net profit mean feed cost was the lowest in the first group because of free supply of byproducts (% 0), which was followed by third (% 22.95) and second groups (% 41.44). during the study was no mortality this indicates that wet feed or by products had not any health hazardous effects.In conclusion it seems to possible to recommend using fish processing by products as a wet feed for rainbow trout.