4.6 Article

Tetraselmis suecia and Tisochrysis lutea meal as dietary ingredients for gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L.) fry

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYCOLOGY
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 2843-2855

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10811-016-0845-0

关键词

Fish nutrition; Gilthead sea bream; Tisochrysis lutea; Microalgae; Starter feed; Tetraselmis suecica

资金

  1. Consejeria de Innovacion, Ciencia y Empresa, Junta de Andalucia [AGR5334]
  2. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion, Spanish Government [AGL2010-20052]
  3. FEDER funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, the nutritional value of Tetraselmis suecica and Tisochrysis lutea (previously known as Isochrysis aff galbana T-ISO strain) freeze-dried biomass for feeding Sparus aurata fry was evaluated. A total of 25,500 fry (3.7 mg body weight) were fed for 55 days on diets containing 5 and 10 % (w/w) Tetraselmis or Tisochrysis, as well as on a microalgae-free diet. Fish fed 5 % Tetraselmis showed higher growth performance, nutrient utilization, and survival values than fish fed Tisochrysis. The use of microalgae significantly decreased the body lipid content in fry fed the highest microalgae level. Fry fed Tisochrysis-supplemented diets increased the DHA content in muscle, and consequently the EPA/DHA ratio decreased significantly, whatever dietary level considered. In general, digestive protease activities were not adversely affected by dietary microalgae inclusion, although slight variations were observed during fish development. Microalgae utilization causes a positive effect on intestinal mucosa ultrastructure owing to an increase of total enterocyte absorption surface that was observed in fish fed microalgae-supplemented diets. Cluster analysis of data separated clearly fish fed Tisochrysis-supplemented diets from the rest of experimental groups. This study confirms that Tetraselmis freeze-dried biomass can be used as dietary ingredient in started feeds for S. aurata fry, although an inclusion level of 5 % is recommended.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据