4.5 Article

Effect on Muscle Cellularity of Diet Supplementation with Nannochloropsis gaditana Microalgae in the Final Fattening Phase of Gilthead Seabream Culture up to Commercial Size

期刊

FISHES
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/fishes8110532

关键词

Nannochloropsis gaditana; final fattening phase; Sparus aurata; muscle cellularity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This experiment investigated the effect of Nannochloropsis gaditana on muscle growth in gilthead seabream. The results showed no significant differences in body parameters and white muscle transverse area (WM) among the groups, but muscle cellularity did show significant differences. The raw feed groups had higher fibrillar density and hyperplasia values, which could improve the final quality of the fish.
Previous studies have shown that Nannochloropsis gaditana can partially replace fishmeal in the diet of gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata. However, its effect on muscle growth is hardly known. This experiment was carried out with gilthead seabream adults that were fed with N. gaditana at two inclusion levels (2.5 or 5%) either raw (R2.5 and R5 groups) or cellulose-hydrolyzed (H2.5 and H5 groups) for 45 days in the final fattening phase. The body length and body weight were measured in all fish at the beginning and end of the experiment. Also, the white muscle transverse area (WM), size, number and fibrillar density of the white fibers were measured in 9 fish group(-1). After 45 days, the body parameters and the WM did not show significant differences among the groups. However, muscle cellularity did show significant differences, such that the hypertrophy values were higher in the H2.5 and H5 than in the R2.5 and R5 groups. On the contrary, R2.5 and R5 showed the highest fibrillar density and hyperplasia values, which are often positively correlated with the fillet firmness and therefore could improve the final quality of the fish. No significant differences attributable to the inclusion levels of N. gaditana were observed.

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

4.5
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