-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Juvenile gilthead sea bream (initial body weight ca. 100 g) were reared in an indoor flow through marine water system for 1 year. Fish were fed two isoenergetic [19.2 kJ g−1 dry matter (DM)] and isoproteic (426 g kg−1 DM) diets either based on fish meal (diet FM) or on a mixture of plant protein sources (diet PP), replacing 75% of fish meal protein. The growth trial was conducted in duplicate, two tanks for each dietary treatment. Growth performance and feed utilization were registered. Fillet quality parameters were evaluated and sensory analyses on cooked fillet were performed. Both groups had similar weight gain and specific growth rates. Feed intake was higher in sea bream fed diet FM (0.48 versus 0.44), while feed efficiency and protein efficiency ratio were significantly higher in sea bream fed PP (0.83 versus 0.77 and 2.0 versus 1.76, respectively). Sea bream fed diet FM had a lower hepatosomatic index (0.80 versus 0.87%), and a higher fillet yield (45.9 versus 44.9%). The fillet from sea bream fed diet FM had higher moisture (696 versus 682 g kg−1), lower lipid levels (91 versus 100 g kg−1) with higher levels of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), while the PP fed sea bream presented a higher level of PUFA n-6. There were minor differences in muscle free amino acid levels between the two diet groups. As regards sensory evaluation of cooked fillet, the judges were unable to discriminate the two dietary groups of fish. Summarizing, the results demonstrate the possibility to use diets containing high levels (750 g kg−1) of plant ingredients in gilthead sea bream without affecting growth performance and with minor effects on quality traits of commercial size sea bream.
Aquaculture Nutrition 09/2007; 13(5):361 - 372. · 2.18 Impact Factor
-
Aquaculture Europe 2004 “Biotechnologies for Quality”, Barcelona (Spain); 10/2004
-
Veterinary Research Communications 09/2004; 28 Suppl 1:237-40. · 0.82 Impact Factor
-
Veterinary Research Communications 01/2004; 28:237-240. · 0.82 Impact Factor
