4.7 Article

Flesh nutritional content of growth hormone transgenic and non-transgenic coho salmon compared to various species of farmed and wild salmon

Journal

AQUACULTURE
Volume 437, Issue -, Pages 318-326

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.11.035

Keywords

Transgenic; Salmon; Farmed; Wild; Nutrition; Fatty acids

Funding

  1. DFO [61740]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the flesh proximate and lipid composition of two year classes and sizes of non-transgenic (NT) and transgenic (T) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) thatwere grown to market size in the same rearing environment and on similar commercial feeds. The data also assessed land-based commercially raised farmed coho salmon, aswell as twoother species of ocean-raised farmed salmonids, and four species ofwild Pacific salmon. The largest differences in nutritional content were seen between wild and farmed salmon. Farmed salmon contained higher muscle lipid levels and had higher levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) relative to wild counterparts. Moreover, the farmed fish also contained higher levels of n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and a lower omega-3 to omega-6 ratios (n-3/n-6). There were small differences in nutritional content between NT and T coho salmon, butmost of these differences were due to the lower body weight and consequently lower lipid content in the small T coho salmon group. The larger NT coho salmonwere very similar in nutritional content to their T counterparts. Overall, fish diet composition and rearing location (commercial feeds in culture vs. natural prey in the wild) had a much larger influence on the flesh nutritional content than did effects of the transgene, and all salmon, regardless of source, were found to be rich sources of EPA and DHA. Crown Copyright (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available