4.6 Article

Key Performance Indicators of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) Wintering in a Pond and RAS under Different Feeding Schemes

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14073724

关键词

gene expression; gills; intestine; mucin 5b; performance

资金

  1. European Union [773330]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effects of different feeding methods on the performance of common carp during overwintering. The results showed that carp fed with a high protein and fat diet had the best performance, while carp in a pond without supplementary feeding had lower weight and abnormal intestines. These findings have important implications for ensuring the sustainability and food security of carp production in the European Union.
Overwintering impacts common carp performance, yet the nature of changes is not known. The aim of the study was to compare the zootechnical and key performance indicators (KPI) of Cyprinus carpio wintering in a pond with no supplementary feeding (MCF), in a Recirculating Aquaculture System (RAS) fed typical (30% of protein and 8% of fat) carp diet (AFC), and in a RAS fed high protein (42%) and fat (12%) diet (ABF). The analysis showed that ABF fish had the highest final body weight and the Fulton's condition factor, as well as the lowest food conversion rate compared with AFC and MCF fish. Histomorphological assessment revealed that MCF fish had thinner skin layers, a depleted population of mucous cells in skin, an excessive interlamellar mass in the gills, and no supranuclear vacuoles in the intestine compared to fish from RAS. At the molecular level, higher transcript levels of il-1 beta and il-6 transcripts were found in the gills of MCF than in fish from RAS. The transcript level of the intestinal muc5b was the highest in ABF fish. Relative expression of il-1 beta and il-6 in gills were presumably the highest due to lamellar fusions in MCF fish. Described KPIs may assist carp production to ensure sustainability and food security in the European Union.

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