动物营养学报
動物營養學報
동물영양학보
ACTA ZOONUTRIMENTA SINICA
2014年
4期
969-980
,共12页
周飘苹%金敏%吴文俊%申屠基康%黎明%周歧存
週飄蘋%金敏%吳文俊%申屠基康%黎明%週歧存
주표평%금민%오문준%신도기강%려명%주기존
大黄鱼%养殖模式%常规营养成分%氨基酸%脂肪酸
大黃魚%養殖模式%常規營養成分%氨基痠%脂肪痠
대황어%양식모식%상규영양성분%안기산%지방산
large yellow croaker%culture mode%common nutrient components%amino acid%fatty acid
本试验旨在对不同养殖模式、投喂不同饵料及不同品系大黄鱼的营养成分进行比较。试验选取东海区野生岱衢族大黄鱼(野生组)、投喂冰鲜鱼的池塘养殖岱衢族大黄鱼(池塘组)、投喂冰鲜鱼的深水网箱养殖岱衢族大黄鱼(深水网箱组)、投喂冰鲜鱼的网箱养殖岱衢族大黄鱼(冰鲜鱼组)、投喂人工配合饲料的网箱养殖岱衢族大黄鱼(饲料组)以及投喂冰鲜鱼的网箱养殖闽东族大黄鱼(闽东组)各6尾,对它们的形态学指标(肥满度、肝体指数和脏体指数,n=6),背部、腹部肌肉及全鱼的常规营养成分(n=3)、氨基酸组成(n=3),背部肌肉脂肪酸组成(n=3)以及全鱼重金属(无机砷、铅、汞和镉)含量(n=3)进行比较分析。结果表明：1)野生组大黄鱼肥满度和肝体指数显著低于深水网箱组、池塘组以及冰鲜鱼组(P<0.05),而不同养殖模式的各组之间肥满度和肝体指数差异不显著(P>0.05)；饲料组大黄鱼脏体指数显著低于冰鲜鱼组和闽东组(P<0.05)。2)野生组大黄鱼背部、腹部肌肉粗脂肪含量最低,但与饲料组差异不显著(P>0.05)；大黄鱼背部、腹部肌肉及全鱼粗蛋白质含量均以野生组、冰鲜鱼组和饲料组较高,且这3组之间差异不显著(P>0.05)；大黄鱼背部、腹部肌肉粗灰分含量各组间差异不显著(P>0.05)。3)野生组、冰鲜鱼组和饲料组大黄鱼背部、腹部肌肉及全鱼氨基酸总量、必需氨基酸总量、呈味氨基酸总量、鲜味氨基酸总量均高于池塘组、深水网箱组和闽东组。4)野生组、饲料组与深水网箱组大黄鱼背部肌肉脂肪酸总量、不饱和脂肪酸总量和高不饱和脂肪酸总量高于冰鲜鱼组、池塘组和闽东组,其中背部肌肉脂肪酸总量和不饱和脂肪酸总量均以闽东组最低。5)野生组大黄鱼全鱼汞含量较高,饲料组大黄鱼全鱼镉含量较高,但各组大黄鱼全鱼无机砷、铅、汞和镉含量均处于安全范围之内。以上结果表明,不同养殖模式以及不同饵料来源对大黄鱼营养成分的影响较大；在相同的养殖模式和投喂相同饵料的情况下,不同品系大黄鱼的营养成分仍存在差异。
本試驗旨在對不同養殖模式、投餵不同餌料及不同品繫大黃魚的營養成分進行比較。試驗選取東海區野生岱衢族大黃魚(野生組)、投餵冰鮮魚的池塘養殖岱衢族大黃魚(池塘組)、投餵冰鮮魚的深水網箱養殖岱衢族大黃魚(深水網箱組)、投餵冰鮮魚的網箱養殖岱衢族大黃魚(冰鮮魚組)、投餵人工配閤飼料的網箱養殖岱衢族大黃魚(飼料組)以及投餵冰鮮魚的網箱養殖閩東族大黃魚(閩東組)各6尾,對它們的形態學指標(肥滿度、肝體指數和髒體指數,n=6),揹部、腹部肌肉及全魚的常規營養成分(n=3)、氨基痠組成(n=3),揹部肌肉脂肪痠組成(n=3)以及全魚重金屬(無機砷、鉛、汞和鎘)含量(n=3)進行比較分析。結果錶明：1)野生組大黃魚肥滿度和肝體指數顯著低于深水網箱組、池塘組以及冰鮮魚組(P<0.05),而不同養殖模式的各組之間肥滿度和肝體指數差異不顯著(P>0.05)；飼料組大黃魚髒體指數顯著低于冰鮮魚組和閩東組(P<0.05)。2)野生組大黃魚揹部、腹部肌肉粗脂肪含量最低,但與飼料組差異不顯著(P>0.05)；大黃魚揹部、腹部肌肉及全魚粗蛋白質含量均以野生組、冰鮮魚組和飼料組較高,且這3組之間差異不顯著(P>0.05)；大黃魚揹部、腹部肌肉粗灰分含量各組間差異不顯著(P>0.05)。3)野生組、冰鮮魚組和飼料組大黃魚揹部、腹部肌肉及全魚氨基痠總量、必需氨基痠總量、呈味氨基痠總量、鮮味氨基痠總量均高于池塘組、深水網箱組和閩東組。4)野生組、飼料組與深水網箱組大黃魚揹部肌肉脂肪痠總量、不飽和脂肪痠總量和高不飽和脂肪痠總量高于冰鮮魚組、池塘組和閩東組,其中揹部肌肉脂肪痠總量和不飽和脂肪痠總量均以閩東組最低。5)野生組大黃魚全魚汞含量較高,飼料組大黃魚全魚鎘含量較高,但各組大黃魚全魚無機砷、鉛、汞和鎘含量均處于安全範圍之內。以上結果錶明,不同養殖模式以及不同餌料來源對大黃魚營養成分的影響較大；在相同的養殖模式和投餵相同餌料的情況下,不同品繫大黃魚的營養成分仍存在差異。
본시험지재대불동양식모식、투위불동이료급불동품계대황어적영양성분진행비교。시험선취동해구야생대구족대황어(야생조)、투위빙선어적지당양식대구족대황어(지당조)、투위빙선어적심수망상양식대구족대황어(심수망상조)、투위빙선어적망상양식대구족대황어(빙선어조)、투위인공배합사료적망상양식대구족대황어(사료조)이급투위빙선어적망상양식민동족대황어(민동조)각6미,대타문적형태학지표(비만도、간체지수화장체지수,n=6),배부、복부기육급전어적상규영양성분(n=3)、안기산조성(n=3),배부기육지방산조성(n=3)이급전어중금속(무궤신、연、홍화력)함량(n=3)진행비교분석。결과표명：1)야생조대황어비만도화간체지수현저저우심수망상조、지당조이급빙선어조(P<0.05),이불동양식모식적각조지간비만도화간체지수차이불현저(P>0.05)；사료조대황어장체지수현저저우빙선어조화민동조(P<0.05)。2)야생조대황어배부、복부기육조지방함량최저,단여사료조차이불현저(P>0.05)；대황어배부、복부기육급전어조단백질함량균이야생조、빙선어조화사료조교고,차저3조지간차이불현저(P>0.05)；대황어배부、복부기육조회분함량각조간차이불현저(P>0.05)。3)야생조、빙선어조화사료조대황어배부、복부기육급전어안기산총량、필수안기산총량、정미안기산총량、선미안기산총량균고우지당조、심수망상조화민동조。4)야생조、사료조여심수망상조대황어배부기육지방산총량、불포화지방산총량화고불포화지방산총량고우빙선어조、지당조화민동조,기중배부기육지방산총량화불포화지방산총량균이민동조최저。5)야생조대황어전어홍함량교고,사료조대황어전어력함량교고,단각조대황어전어무궤신、연、홍화력함량균처우안전범위지내。이상결과표명,불동양식모식이급불동이료래원대대황어영양성분적영향교대；재상동적양식모식화투위상동이료적정황하,불동품계대황어적영양성분잉존재차이。
This study was conducted to compare the nutrient components of large yellow croaker ( Pseudosciae-na crocea Richardson ) cultured in different modes fed different feeds and from different strains. Six wild Daiqu strain large yellow croaker captured in East China Sea ( wild group) , 6 Daiqu strain large yellow croak-er cultured in pond which fed frozen fresh fish ( pond group) , 6 Daiqu strain large yellow croaker cultured in deep-water net cage which fed frozen fresh fish ( deep-water net cage group ) , 6 Daiqu strain large yellow croaker cultured in net cage which fed frozen fresh fish ( frozen fresh fish group) , 6 Daiqu strain large yellow croaker cultured in net cage which fed artificial compound feed ( feed group ) , and 6 Mindong satin large croaker yellow cultured in net cage which fed frozen fresh fish ( Mindong group) were selected to analyze and compare the morphological indices ( condition factor, viscerosomatic index and hepatosomatic index, n=6 ) , common nutrient components ( n =3 ) and amino acid composition in back muscle, abdominal muscle and whole body ( n=3 ) , fatty acid composition in back muscle ( n =3 ) , and heavy metal ( inorganic arsenic, mercury, plumbum and chromium) contents in whole body ( n=3 ) . The results showed as follows: 1 ) the condition factor and hepatosmatic index of large yellow croaker in wild group were significantly lower than those in deep-water net cage group, pond group and frozen fresh fish group (P<0. 05), while the condition factor and hepatosmatic index were not significantly different among groups cultured in different modes ( P>0 . 05 ); the viscerosomatic index in feed group was significantly lower than that in frozen fresh fish group and Mindong group ( P<0 . 05 ) . 2 ) The crude lipid content in back muscle and abdominal muscle of large yellow croaker in wild group was the lowest, but no significant difference was found between wild group and feed group (P>0. 05); the crude protein content in back muscle, abdominal muscle and whole body of large yellow croaker in wild group, frozen fresh fish group and feed group was higher than that in other groups, and no significant difference was found among above 3 groups ( P>0 . 05 );no significant difference was found in ash content in back muscle and abdominal muscle of large yellow croaker among all groups ( P>0 . 05 ) . 3 ) The contents of total amino acids, total essential amino acids, total flavor amino acids and total delicious amino acids in back muscle, abdominal muscle and whole body of large yellow croaker in wild group, frozen fresh fish group and feed group were higher than those in pond group, deep-water net cage group and Mindong group. 4 ) The contents of total fatty acids, total unsaturated fatty acids and highly unsaturated fatty acids in back muscle of large yellow croaker in wild group, feed group and deep-water net cage group were higher than those in frozen fresh fish group, pond group and Mindong group, and the lowest contents of total fatty acids and total unsaturated fatty acids in back muscle were found in Mindong group. 5) The large yellow croaker in wild group had a higher mercury content in whole body, and those in feed group had a higher chromium con-tent in whole body, while the inorganic arsenic, mercury, plumbum and chromium contents in whole body of large yellow croaker in all groups were all in the safety range. These results indicate that different culture modes and different feed sources have significant effects on the nutrient components of large yellow croaker. Under the condition of cultured in the same mode and fed the same feed, the differences of nutrient components still exist among different strains of large yellow croaker.
