4.5 Article

Partial replacement of fish meal by a mixture of soybean meal and rapeseed meal in practical diets for juvenile Chinese mitten crab Eriocheir sinensis: effects on growth performance and in vivo digestibility

期刊

AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 11, 页码 1615-1622

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2010.02751.x

关键词

Eriocheir sinensis; fish meal; soybean meal; rapeseed meal; growth performance; apparent digestibility coefficients

资金

  1. Key Technologies R&D Program during the 11th 5-year plan, China [2006BAD03B07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An 8-week experiment was conducted to examine the effect of partial replacement of fish meal (FM) by a mixture of soybean meal (SBM) and rapeseed meal (RM) in practical diets of juvenile Chinese mitten crab Eriocheir sinensis of initial body weight of 1.54 +/- 0.12 g (means +/- SD, n = 90). Five isonitrogenous diets were formulated to contain 35% protein and 5% lipid. Soybean meal and RM mix (1:1 ratio) were included at five levels of 0 (control), 15%, 30%, 45% and 60%, replacing 0, 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% FM respectively. When FM was replaced by 15% of SBM and RM, crab showed the highest growth, feed utilization and moulting frequency (MF). Fish meal replaced by SBM and RM did not significantly influence crude protein, lipid and moisture contents of whole body crab, but ash content was the lowest for crab fed the diet with FM replaced by 15% of SBM and RM. Apparent digestibility coefficients (ADCs) of dry matter, crude protein and energy tended to decline with increasing inclusion levels of dietary SBM and RM. In general, ADCs of lipid were high (over 90%) and showed no significant differences among the treatments (P>0.05). Based on these observations above, these results indicated that about 40% of FM can be replaced with a mixture of SBM and RM (1:1 ratio) in the diet of E. sinensis without adverse growth performance, compared with the FM-based diet. However, 20% of FM replaced by SBM and RM produced the best growth performance and feed utilization.

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