Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A nutrient source was diluted with indigestible filler in the form of α‐cellulose. The trout compensated for up to 30% cellulose by increasing the total weight of food eaten, thereby stabilizing both nutrient intake and growth rate. The fish failed to compensate for levels of 40–50% cellulose and, despite evidence for an increase in the size of the stomach, nutrient intake was approximately halved. There was a slight reduction in food conversion efficiency and the growth rate declined accordingly. By contrast, faecal output rose considerably.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bromley et al. (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: