Analysis and Comparison of Nutritional Quality of Muscle from Coilia nasus Fed Formulated Feed and Live Feed

SHI Yonghai; ZHANG Genyu; ZHANG Haiming; LIU Yongshi; YAN Yinlong; XIE Yongde; LU Genhai; XU Jiabo; LIU Jianzhong

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2014.02.019

Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2014 , Vol. 26 >Issue 2: 427 - 436

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2014.02.019

Aquaculture Nutrition

Analysis and Comparison of Nutritional Quality of Muscle from Coilia nasus Fed Formulated Feed and Live Feed

SHI Yonghai ,
ZHANG Genyu ,
ZHANG Haiming ,
LIU Yongshi ,
YAN Yinlong ,
XIE Yongde ,
LU Genhai ,
XU Jiabo ,
LIU Jianzhong

Expand

Shanghai Fisheries Research Institute, Shanghai Fisheries Technical Extension Station, Shanghai 200433, China

Received date: 2013-08-21

Online published: 2014-01-27

Fold

Abstract

In order to understand the effects of formulated feed and live feed on muscle nutrient components of Coilia nasus, the nutrient components of muscle from juvenile Coilia nasus fed formulated feed and live feed were analyzed by biochemical analysis method, and the nutritional quality was analyzed and compared. There were 2 groups in the experiment, one was formulated feed group in which the fish were fed formulated feed, the other was live feed group in which the fish were fed post larvae, juvenile prawn and larvae of living mysid shrimp and copepods. Each group had 3 replicates and each replicate had 300 juvenile Coilia nasus (body length, 80.0 to 100.0 mm; body weight, 2.0 to 3.0 g). The experiment was from the beginning of June 10, 2012 to the ending of December 5, 2012. The results showed as follows: the muscle moisture content of formulated feed group (75.53%) was significantly higher than that of live feed group (68.22%) (P<0.05), while the muscle ether extract content of formulated feed group (4.60%) was significantly lower than that of live feed group (11.23%) (P<0.05). No significant differences in the contents of crude protein and ash in muscle were found between two groups (P>0.05). A total of 18 kinds of amino acids were found in muscle from two groups, there were no significant differences in the contents of 8 kinds of amino acids (aspartate, threonine, glutamic acid, leucine, tyrosine, lysine, tryptophane and cystine) between two groups (P>0.05), while in another 10 kinds of amino acids (serine, glycine, alanine, valine, methionine, isoleucine, phenylalanine, histidine, arginine and proline), the contents of formulated feed group were significantly higher than those of live feed group (P<0.05). The percentage contents of total amino acid (TAA), essential amino acid (EAA), half-essential amino acid (HEAA), non-essential amino acid (NEAA) and delicious amino acid (DAA) in dry muscle of formulated feed group were significantly higher than those of live feed group (P<0.05), while, because of the different moisture contents of fresh muscle, there were no significant differences in the percentage contents of these indices in fresh muscle between two groups (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in the ratios of EAA/TAA, EAA/NEAA and DAA/TAA between two groups (P>0.05), while the muscle essential amino acid index (EAAI) of formulated feed group (56.96) was significantly higher than that of live feed group (45.49) (P<0.05). The relative percentage content of saturated fatty acid (SFA) of formulated feed group (31.24%) was significantly higher than that of live feed group (29.40%) (P<0.05), while there were no significant differences in the relative percentage contents of poly-unsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) and mono-unsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) between two groups (P<0.05). The relative percentage content of n-6 PUFA of formulated feed group (4.24%) was significantly higher than that of live feed group (1.35%) (P<0.05), which led to the n-3 PUFA/n-6 PUFA of formulated feed group (2.34) was significantly lower than that of live feed group (8.85) (P<0.05). The results indicate that the muscle protein quality of Coilia nasus fed formulated feed is slightly better than that of Coilia nasus fed live feed, but the muscle ether extract content of juvenile Coilia nasus fed formulated feed is lower. So, we suggest to increase the crude fat content and to optimize the fatty acid composition in formulated feed.

Key words： Coilia nasus; feed; muscle; nutrient component; amino acid; fatty acid

Cite this article

SHI Yonghai , ZHANG Genyu , ZHANG Haiming , LIU Yongshi , YAN Yinlong , XIE Yongde , LU Genhai , XU Jiabo , LIU Jianzhong . Analysis and Comparison of Nutritional Quality of Muscle from Coilia nasus Fed Formulated Feed and Live Feed[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2014 , 26(2) : 427 -436 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2014.02.019

References

[1] 魏广莲, 徐钢春, 顾若波, 等.刀鲚的生物学及人工养殖研究进展[J].长江大学学报:自然版农学卷, 2012, 9(7):31-35, 41.

[2] 唐雪, 徐钢春, 徐跑, 等.野生与养殖刀鲚肌肉营养成分的比较分析[J].动物营养学报, 2011, 23(3):514-520.

[3] 葛珂珂, 钟俊生, 吴美琴, 等.长江口沿岸碎波带刀鲚仔稚鱼的数量分布[J].中国水产科学, 2009, 16(6):923-930.

[4] 程万秀, 唐文乔.长江刀鲚不同生态型间的某些形态差异[J].动物学杂志, 2011, 46(5):33-40.

[5] 王丹婷, 杨健, 姜涛, 等.不同水域刀鲚形态的分析比较[J].水产学报, 2012, 36(1):78-90.

[6] 郑飞, 郭弘艺, 唐文乔, 等.溯河洄游的长江刀鲚种群的年龄结构及其生长特征[J].动物学杂志, 2012, 47(5):24-31.

[7] 马春艳, 刘敏, 马凌波, 等.长江口刀鲚遗传多样性的随机扩增多态DNA(RAPD)分析[J].海洋水产研究, 2004, 25(5):19-24.

[8] 张媛, 胡则辉, 周志刚, 等.利用RAPD-PCR与ISSR-PCR标记技术分析长江口刀鲚的群体遗传结构[J].上海水产大学学报, 2006, 15(4):390-397.

[9] 程起群, 温俊娥, 王云龙, 等.刀鲚与湖鲚线粒体细胞色素b基因片段多态性及遗传关系[J].湖泊科学, 2006, 18(4):425-430.

[10] 徐钢春, 顾若波, 张呈祥, 等.刀鲚两种生态类群-"江刀"和"海刀"鱼肉营养组成的比较及品质的评价[J].海洋渔业, 2009, 31(4):401-409.

[11] 闻海波, 张呈祥, 徐钢春, 等.长江刀鲚营养成分分析与品质评价[J].广东海洋大学学报, 2008, 28(6):20-24.

[12] 朱栋良.长江刀鱼的天然繁殖与胚胎发育观察[J].水产科技情报, 1992, 19(2):49-51.

[13] LI Y X, XIE S G, LI Z J, et al.Gonad development of an anadromous fish Coilia nasus (Engraulidae) in lower reach of Yangtze river, China[J].Fisheries Science, 2007, 73(6):1224-1230.

[14] 闻海波, 张呈祥, 徐钢春, 等.长江刀鲚与池塘人工养殖刀鲚性腺发育的初步观察[J].动物学杂志, 2009, 44(4):111-117.

[15] 徐钢春, 徐跑, 顾若波, 等.池养刀鲚(Coilia nasus)鱼种的摄食与生长[J].生态学杂志, 2011, 30(9):2014-2018.

[16] FAO/WHO.Energy and protein requirements[M].Rome:FAO Nutrition Meeting Report Series, 1973:52.

[17] 桥本芳郎.养鱼饲料学[M].蔡完其, 译.北京:中国农业出版社, 1980:114-115.

[18] 庄平, 宋超, 章龙珍.长江口安氏白虾与日本沼虾营养成分比较[J].动物学报, 2008, 54(5):822-829.

[19] 施永海, 张根玉, 刘永士, 等.野生及养殖哈氏仿对虾肌肉营养成分的分析与比较[J].水产学报, 2013, 37(5):768-776.

[20] 高露姣, 楼宝, 毛国民, 等.不同饵料饲养的褐牙鲆肌肉营养成分的比较[J].海洋渔业, 2009, 31(3):293-299.

[21] 庄平, 宋超, 章龙珍, 等.转食不同饵料对野生中华鲟幼鱼肌肉营养成分的影响[J].水生生物学报, 2009, 33(5):998-1004.

[22] LE RUYET J P, ALEXANDRE J C, THBAUD L, et al.Marine fish larvae feeding:formulated diets or live pery?[J].Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 1993, 24(2):211-224.

[23] 李芹, 刁晓明.不同饵料对瓦氏黄颡鱼稚鱼生长和消化酶活性的影响[J].水生态学杂志, 2009, 2(1):98-102.

[24] 庄平, 宋超, 章龙珍.舌虾虎鱼肌肉营养成分与品质的评价[J].水产学报, 2010, 34(4):559-564.

[25] 赵振山, 高贵琴.鱼类必需脂肪酸营养研究进展[J].饲料研究, 1996(12):12-15.

[26] 王丹丽, 徐善良, 严小军, 等.大黄鱼仔、稚、幼鱼发育阶段的脂肪酸组成及其变化[J].水产学报, 2006, 30(2):241-245.

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References