配合饲料和活饵料喂养刀鲚肌肉营养品质分析与比较
배합사료화활이료위양도제기육영양품질분석여비교
Analysis and Comparison of Nutritional Quality of Muscle from Coilia nasus Fed Formulated Feed and Live Feed
  • 万方数据
    动物营养学报 동물영양학보
    ACTA ZOONUTRIMENTA SINICA
    2014年 2期 427-436 ,共10页

    施永海%张根玉%张海明%刘永士%严银龙%谢永德%陆根海%徐嘉波%刘建忠

    시영해%장근옥%장해명%류영사%엄은룡%사영덕%륙근해%서가파%류건충

    刀鲚%饲料%肌肉%营养成分%氨基酸%脂肪酸 刀鱭%飼料%肌肉%營養成分%氨基痠%脂肪痠
    도제%사료%기육%영양성분%안기산%지방산
    Coilia nasus%feed%muscle%nutrient component%amino acid%fatty acid
    为了解配合饲料和活饵料对刀鲚肌肉营养成分的影响，采用生化分析方法对配合饲料和活饵料喂养刀鲚的肌肉进行营养成分分析，并对营养品质进行分析与比较。试验设2个组，即投喂配合饲料的配合饲料组和投喂活体糠虾的仔虾、幼虾和幼体以及桡足类的活饵料组，每组设有3个重复，每个重复300尾刀鲚幼鱼（体长80．0～100．0 mm、体重2．0～3．0 g）。试验从2012年6月10日开始至2012年12月5日结束。结果表明：配合饲料组的肌肉水分含量（75．53％）显著高于活饵料组（68．22％）（P＜0．05），而粗脂肪含量（4．60％）显著低于活饵料组（11．23％）（P＜0．05），粗蛋白质和粗灰分含量2组之间没有显著差异（P＞0．05）。在检测到的18种氨基酸中，有10种氨基酸（丝氨酸、甘氨酸、丙氨酸、缬氨酸、蛋氨酸、异亮氨酸、苯丙氨酸、组氨酸、精氨酸、脯氨酸）的含量为配合饲料组显著高于活饵料组（P＜0．05），其余8种氨基酸（天冬氨酸、苏氨酸、谷氨酸、亮氨酸、酪氨酸、赖氨酸、色氨酸、胱氨酸）的含量2组之间没有显著差异（P＞0．05）；配合饲料组的氨基酸总量（TAA）、必需氨基酸（EAA）、半必需氨基酸（ HEAA）、非必需氨基酸（ NEAA）和鲜味氨基酸（ DAA）占肌肉干重百分含量均显著高于活饵料组（P＜0．05），但由于肌肉水分含量的不同，这些指标换算为占肌肉鲜重百分含量后2组间则没有显著差异（ P＞0．05）；配合饲料组的肌肉EAA与TAA、EAA与NEAA以及DAA与TAA的比率与活饵料组也均没有显著差异（P＞0．05），但配合饲料组的肌肉必需氨基酸指数（EAAI）（56．96）显著高于活饵料组（45．49）（P＜0．05）。配合饲料组的肌肉饱和脂肪酸（SFA）相对百分含量（31．24％）显著高于活饵料组（29．40％）（P＜0．05），多不饱和脂肪酸（PUFA）和单不饱和脂肪酸（MUFA）相对百分含量在2组之间则没有显著差异（P＞0．05）；配合饲料组的肌肉n-6 PUFA相对百分含量（4．24％）显著高于活饵料组（1．35％）（P＜0．05），导致配合饲料组的n-3 PUFA/n-6 PUFA（2．34）显著低于活饵料组（8．85）（P＜0．05）。由此得出，配合饲料喂养的刀鲚肌肉蛋白质品质略优于活饵料喂养的刀鲚，但其肌肉粗脂肪含量较低，建议提高配合饲料中粗脂肪含量，优化脂肪酸组成。
    위료해배합사료화활이료대도제기육영양성분적영향，채용생화분석방법대배합사료화활이료위양도제적기육진행영양성분분석，병대영양품질진행분석여비교。시험설2개조，즉투위배합사료적배합사료조화투위활체강하적자하、유하화유체이급뇨족류적활이료조，매조설유3개중복，매개중복300미도제유어（체장80．0～100．0 mm、체중2．0～3．0 g）。시험종2012년6월10일개시지2012년12월5일결속。결과표명：배합사료조적기육수분함량（75．53％）현저고우활이료조（68．22％）（P＜0．05），이조지방함량（4．60％）현저저우활이료조（11．23％）（P＜0．05），조단백질화조회분함량2조지간몰유현저차이（P＞0．05）。재검측도적18충안기산중，유10충안기산（사안산、감안산、병안산、힐안산、단안산、이량안산、분병안산、조안산、정안산、포안산）적함량위배합사료조현저고우활이료조（P＜0．05），기여8충안기산（천동안산、소안산、곡안산、량안산、락안산、뢰안산、색안산、광안산）적함량2조지간몰유현저차이（P＞0．05）；배합사료조적안기산총량（TAA）、필수안기산（EAA）、반필수안기산（ HEAA）、비필수안기산（ NEAA）화선미안기산（ DAA）점기육간중백분함량균현저고우활이료조（P＜0．05），단유우기육수분함량적불동，저사지표환산위점기육선중백분함량후2조간칙몰유현저차이（ P＞0．05）；배합사료조적기육EAA여TAA、EAA여NEAA이급DAA여TAA적비솔여활이료조야균몰유현저차이（P＞0．05），단배합사료조적기육필수안기산지수（EAAI）（56．96）현저고우활이료조（45．49）（P＜0．05）。배합사료조적기육포화지방산（SFA）상대백분함량（31．24％）현저고우활이료조（29．40％）（P＜0．05），다불포화지방산（PUFA）화단불포화지방산（MUFA）상대백분함량재2조지간칙몰유현저차이（P＞0．05）；배합사료조적기육n-6 PUFA상대백분함량（4．24％）현저고우활이료조（1．35％）（P＜0．05），도치배합사료조적n-3 PUFA/n-6 PUFA（2．34）현저저우활이료조（8．85）（P＜0．05）。유차득출，배합사료위양적도제기육단백질품질략우우활이료위양적도제，단기기육조지방함량교저，건의제고배합사료중조지방함량，우화지방산조성。
    In order to understand the effects of formulated feed and live feed on muscle nutrient components of Coilia nasus, the nutrient components of muscle from juvenile Coilia nasus fed formulated feed and live feed were analyzed by biochemical analysis method, and the nutritional quality was analyzed and compared.There were 2 groups in the experiment, one was formulated feed group in which the fish were fed formulated feed, the other was live feed group in which the fish were fed post larvae, juvenile prawn and larvae of living mysid shrimp and copepods.Each group had 3 replicates and each replicate had 300 juvenile Coilia nasus ( body length, 80.0 to 100.0 mm;body weight, 2.0 to 3.0 g).The experiment was from the beginning of June 10, 2012 to the ending of December 5, 2012.The results showed as follows:the muscle moisture content of for-mulated feed group (75.53%) was significantly higher than that of live feed group (68.22%) (P<0.05), while the muscle ether extract content of formulated feed group (4.60%) was significantly lower than that of live feed group (11.23%) (P<0.05).No significant differences in the contents of crude protein and ash in muscle were found between two groups ( P>0 .05 ) .A total of 18 kinds of amino acids were found in muscle from two groups, there were no significant differences in the contents of 8 kinds of amino acids ( aspartate, threonine, glutamic acid, leucine, tyrosine, lysine, tryptophane and cystine ) between two groups ( P >0.05), while in another 10 kinds of amino acids (serine, glycine, alanine, valine, methionine, isoleucine, phenylalanine, histidine, arginine and proline) , the contents of formulated feed group were significantly higher than those of live feed group (P<0.05).The percentage contents of total amino acid (TAA), essential ami-no acid ( EAA) , half-essential amino acid ( HEAA) , non-essential amino acid ( NEAA) and delicious amino&nbsp;acid ( DAA) in dry muscle of formulated feed group were significantly higher than those of live feed group (P<0.05), while, because of the different moisture contents of fresh muscle, there were no significant differences in the percentage contents of these indices in fresh muscle between two groups ( P>0 .05 ) .There were no significant differences in the ratios of EAA/TAA, EAA/NEAA and DAA/TAA between two groups (P>0.05), while the muscle essential amino acid index (EAAI) of formulated feed group (56.96) was sig-nificantly higher than that of live feed group ( 45 .49 ) ( P<0 .05 ) .The relative percentage content of saturat-ed fatty acid ( SFA) of formulated feed group (31.24%) was significantly higher than that of live feed group (29.40%) (P<0.05), while there were no significant differences in the relative percentage contents of poly-unsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) and mono-unsaturated fatty acid ( MUFA) between two groups ( P<0.05). The relative percentage content of n-6 PUFA of formulated feed group ( 4 .24%) was significantly higher than that of live feed group (1.35%) ( P <0.05), which led to the n-3 PUFA/n-6 PUFA of formulated feed group (2.34) was significantly lower than that of live feed group (8.85) (P<0.05).The results indicate that the muscle protein quality of Coilia nasus fed formulated feed is slightly better than that of Coilia nasus fed live feed, but the muscle ether extract content of juvenile Coilia nasus fed formulated feed is lower.So, we suggest to increase the crude fat content and to optimize the fatty acid composition in formulated feed.
    원문보기 원문다운로드 사이트로이동
저자의 최근 논문