4.7 Article

Performance of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fingerlings fed diets containing different levels of faba bean (Vicia faba) meal

期刊

AQUACULTURE
卷 416, 期 -, 页码 161-165

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.09.013

关键词

Oncorhynchus mykiss; Faba bean; Growth; Feed utilization; Digestibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was conducted to determine the replacement value of faba bean meal (FBM) for soybean meal (SBM) in practical diets of Oncorhynchus mykiss fingerlings. Four isonitrogenous (42% crude protein) and isolipidic (20% total lipid) diets were formulated using commercial ingredients. Faba bean meal was added in the diets at levels of 0% (control) and 15, 30 and 45%. When the FBM content was increased in the diets, the soybean meal, fish meal and wheat flour were gradually reduced to adjust protein and carbohydrate contents. A completely randomized experimental design was developed with four treatments and three replicates. Two hundred and forty rainbow trouts with average initial weight of 12.5 +/- 0.09 g were assigned to twelve experimental tanks. The experiment lasted for seven weeks. Based on results, survival did not differ among treatments (p > 0.05). Growth performance and feed conversion ratio of rainbow trout fingerlings fed diets containing 15 and 30% FBM were similar (p > 0.05) to the control diet. However, 15% FBM diet showed better performance (p < 0.05) compared to the 30% FBM diet. The poorest growth performance and FCR were observed in the fish fed the diet containing 45% FBM. The apparent digestibility of dry matter and protein decreased with increasing levels of FBM from 30% to 45% in diet. No significant difference (p > 0.05) was found in carcass protein and ash contents among the dietary treatments. The present results demonstrated that rainbow trout fingerlings can tolerate up to 30% FBM in diet, but maximum growth performance was found at the 15% FBM diet. (C) 2013 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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