4.7 Article

Effect of dietary lipid level on growth, feed utilization and body composition of juvenile giant croaker Nibea japonica

期刊

AQUACULTURE
卷 434, 期 -, 页码 145-150

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.08.012

关键词

Giant croaker Nibea japonica; Lipid level; Growth; Body composition

资金

  1. Applied Basic Research Programs of international science and technology cooperation program of Zhejiang Province [2013C24029]
  2. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [Y3090624]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Five isoproteic diets were designated to investigate the effects of dietary lipid levels (from 5% to 21%) on the growth performance, body composition and nutrition utilization of juvenile giant croaker, Nibea japonica (initially weighing, 6.67 +/- 0.18 g per fish). Each diet was fed to triplicate tanks (15 fish per tank) for 8-weeks. Fish fed diets with low lipid levels (5-13%) showed significantly higher weight gain (WG) and special growth ratio (SGR) than those fed high lipid diets (17-21%) (P < 0.05). A decreased trend of feed intake (Fl) and daily feed intake (DFI) was observed in Nibea japonica fed diets with lipid level from 5% to 21%. Diets with 9-13% lipid level could improve the protein utilization in this species. Fish fed diets with 5% and 9% lipid level had significantly lower viscerosomatic index (VSI), hepatosomatic index (HSI) and intraperitoneal fat ratio (IPF) than those fed with high lipid diets (13-21%) (P < 0.05). Fish fed diet with lowest lipid level showed significantly lower whole body lipid level than other treatments (P < 0.05). The liver lipid content had a trend to increase with dietary lipid level increased (P < 0.05), while liver protein and moisture level decreased with an increase in dietary lipid level (P < 0.05). Based on the second order polynomial regression analysis of WG, this study suggested that 8.22% dietary lipid level was appropriated for N. japonica. (C) 2014 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