4.2 Article

Changes in Tissue Lipid and Fatty Acid Composition of Farmed Rainbow Trout in Response to Dietary Camelina Oil as a Replacement of Fish Oil

期刊

LIPIDS
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 97-111

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1007/s11745-013-3862-7

关键词

Camelina sativa; Rainbow trout; Lipids; Fatty acids

资金

  1. Genome Atlantic
  2. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA)-Atlantic Innovation Fund (AIF)
  3. Research and Development Corporation of Newfoundland (RDC)
  4. NSERC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Camelina oil (CO) replaced 50 and 100 % of fish oil (FO) in diets for farmed rainbow trout (initial weight 44 +/- A 3 g fish(-1)). The oilseed is particularly unique due to its high lipid content (40 %) and high amount of 18:3n-3 (alpha-linolenic acid, ALA) (30 %). Replacing 100 % of fish oil with camelina oil did not negatively affect growth of rainbow trout after a 12-week feeding trial (FO = 168 +/- A 32 g fish(-1); CO = 184 +/- A 35 g fish(-1)). Lipid and fatty acid profiles of muscle, viscera and skin were significantly affected by the addition of CO after 12 weeks of feeding. However, final 22:6n-3 [docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)] and 20:5n-3 [eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)] amounts (563 mg) in a 75 g fillet (1 serving) were enough to satisfy daily DHA and EPA requirements (250 mg) set by the World Health Organization. Other health benefits include lower SFA and higher MUFA in filets fed CO versus FO. Compound-specific stable isotope analysis (CSIA) confirmed that the delta C-13 isotopic signature of DHA in CO fed trout shifted significantly compared to DHA in FO fed trout. The shift in DHA delta C-13 indicates mixing of a terrestrial isotopic signature compared to the isotopic signature of DHA in fish oil-fed tissue. These results suggest that similar to 27 % of DHA was synthesized from the terrestrial and isotopically lighter ALA in the CO diet rather than incorporation of DHA from fish meal in the CO diet. This was the first study to use CSIA in a feeding experiment to demonstrate synthesis of DHA in fish.

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

4.2
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