4.5 Article

Nutritional status of a nereidid polychaete cultured in sand filters of mariculture wastewater

期刊

AQUACULTURE NUTRITION
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 675-691

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/anu.12129

关键词

amino acids; biosecurity; broodstock nutrition; lipids; minerals; Nereididae

资金

  1. Queensland Government's Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry through their Aquaculture Research Programme
  2. Australian Government's Department of Agriculture, Fisheries Forestry through their National Landcare Program [60945]
  3. Australian Government's Department of Agriculture, Fisheries Forestry through their Caring for Our Country Program [SEQC1418]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the nutritional composition of the intertidal marine polychaete Perinereis helleri (Nereididae) when artificially cultured in sand filters treating mariculture wastewater. Moisture levels in harvested P. helleri ranged from 758 to 855 g kg(-1), and ash, from 23 to 61 g kg(-1) wet matter (WM). Stocking density and graded size after harvest significantly affected their composition. Higher total lipid contents were found in large (>0.6 g) P. helleri (16-19 g kg(-1) WM) and those grown at the lowest density (1000 m (2) : 18 g kg (1) WM) than in small (<= 0.6 g) ones (14 g kg(-1) WM) and those grown at the highest densities (4000-6000 m(-2) : 13-16 g kg(-1) WM). Several fatty acids within a very broad profile (some 30 identified) reflected this pattern, yet their ARA/EPA/DHA ratios were relatively unaffected. Feeding the polychaete-assisted sand filters (PASF) with fish meal to increase worm biomass productivity significantly increased their DHA content. Other components (e. g. protein, phospholipids, cholesterol, carbohydrate, amino acids, nitrogen, minerals and bromophenols) and nutritional factors (e. g. maturity, feeding seaweed and endemic shrimp viral content) were also investigated. Results suggest that PASF-produced P. helleri have a well-balanced nutritional profile for penaeid shrimp and fish broodstock.

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