4.5 Article

Effect of dietary carbohydrate to lipid ratios on growth, digestive enzyme and blood metabolites of juvenile Brazilian sardines, Sardinella brasiliensis (Steindachner, 1879)

期刊

AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
卷 48, 期 9, 页码 5111-5121

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/are.13330

关键词

live bait; feed utilisation; growth; digestive enzyme; body composition; blood metabolites

资金

  1. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior) [AUX-PE 879/2010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The limited availability of live bait for capturing skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, is a bottleneck to increasing tuna production in many parts of the world. Therefore, a nutrition trial was performed to contribute to the production of the Brazilian sardine, Sardinella brasiliensis, for use as live bait. This study determined the best dietary carbohydrate to lipid ratio (CHO:L) for juvenile Brazilian sardines based on growth performance, feed utilisation, body composition, blood metabolites and digestive enzyme activity. Six isoenergetic and isonitrogenous diets were formulated with increased CHO:L ratios (2.05, 3.41, 4.15, 5.11, 5.80 and 6.72). Each diet was randomly assigned to triplicate groups of 100 fish with mean initial body weight of 2.97 +/- 0.51g, which were fed four times a day to apparent satiation. Survival was not affected by differences in diet, however, a low CHO:L ratio stimulated growth. Juveniles fed with a rich-carbohydrate diet inhibit feed intake and protein intake. Body lipid increased as dietary lipid increased and was inversely correlated to body moisture. The diets did not affect the juvenile's blood metabolites. Alkaline and acid protease activities were not significantly different, but lipase and amylase responded positively to the dietary lipids and carbohydrates. Using segmented regression, the optimum CHO:L ratio for maximum weight gain of juvenile Brazilian sardines was estimated to be 3.41, which contain approximately 300gkg(-1) carbohydrate and 88gkg(-1) lipid.

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