4.6 Article

Comparison of nutritional composition of farmed pufferfish muscles among Fugu obscurus, Fugu flavidus and Fugu rubripes

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD COMPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 40-45

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2012.06.004

Keywords

Farmed pufferfish; Fugu obscurus; Fugu flavidus; Fugu rubripes; Food safety; Food nutrition; Proximate composition; Protein; Amino acid profile; Mineral; Food analysis; Food composition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The nutritional composition of muscles from three farmed pufferfish species, Fugu obscurus, Fugu flavidus and Fugu rubripes, was investigated. All three species had high crude protein contents ranging between 17.8 g/100 g and 18.9 g/100 g (with the highest for F. rubripes), and low crude fat contents, 0.73 g/100 g to 0.83 g/100 g for adults, and 0.21 g/100 g to 0.29 g/100 g for juveniles. Significant differences (P < 0.05) in macroelement contents and no significant differences (P > 0.05) in microelement contents were found among the three species. It was found that K was the most abundant macroelement, ranging from 287 mg/100 g to 402 mg/100 g, while Fe was the most abundant microelement, 1.52 mg/100 g to 2.11 mg/100 g. Total amino acid (TAA) contents of three species were between 51.7 g/100 g and 62.9 g/100 g dry weight. The ratios of total essential amino acids to TAA were between 0.43 and 0.50, and F. flovidus had the highest ratio. The ratios of total umami amino acids to TAA were between 0.36 and 0.45, with the highest for F. rubripes. In eight amino acid scores (AAS), six AAS of three adult pufferfish were close to 1.00, but two AAS of valine and sum of phenylalanine and tyrosine of juveniles were close to 1.00. This study shows that the three pufferfish species under investigation have high nutritional qualities and are good protein resources. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available