4.5 Article

A comprehensive evaluation of replacing fishmeal with housefly (Musca domestica) maggot meal in the diet of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus): growth performance, flesh quality, innate immunity and water environment

期刊

AQUACULTURE NUTRITION
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 983-993

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/anu.12466

关键词

fishmeal replacement; flesh quality; growth performance; housefly maggot meal; innate immunity; water environment

资金

  1. European Union [312084]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 10-week feeding trial of using housefly (Musca domestica) maggot meal (MM) in practical feeds for Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) was conducted to assess the growth performance, ingredient utilization, flesh quality, innate immunity and its influence on water environment. Fish were fed five isonitrogenous and isoenergetic diets, where fishmeal (FM) was substituted by MM at the level of 0, 90, 180, 270 and 360 g kg(-1) diet (remaining FM content: 360, 270, 180, 90 and 0 g kg(-1)). There was no significant difference in feed intake and apparent digestibility coefficient between the treatments. Replacing up to 270 g kg(-1) FM did not have an impact on the growth performance and ingredient utilization, whereas the complete replacement of FM caused significantly lower survival rate, weight gain, specific growth rate and higher feed conversion rate. Dietary MM was also proved positively influential in flesh quality, whereas replacing 180 g kg(-1) or more FM suppressed the innate immunity of tilapia. When compared by the effects on the water environment, the increasing substitute levels were accompanied with the declining concentrations of nitrite nitrogen and total phosphorus in the water. Our study verified the feasibility of using MM as a partial substitute of FM in aquatic feed. When replacing 180 g kg(-1) FM (corresponding to half of the FM content in control diet) in the diet of Nile tilapia, it can serve as a renewable and environmentally superior alternative without compromising the performance criteria.

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