The model between food intake and fish size emphasised that fish offered 1 RFL were underfed. This statement remained unchanged after survival rates were taken into account in the analysis, except for the last feeding day (Fig. 6). Similarly, it turned out that from 60 to 108 hah fish offered 3 RFL were not fed in excess but just maximally. However, these findings do not compromise the relevance of the experimental design, because the highest feeding level that was evaluated at all fish densities (9 RFL) was enough to produce maximal or near-maximal growth in this species (comparison with the 10:81 treatment; Fig. 3). The growth model that was constructed with a stepwise multiple-regression analysis provided evidence that prey
density (per volume unit) prevailed over prey availability (per fish), and that fish growth at a particular prey density was inversely proportional to the fish density.