4.5 Article

Effects of dietary protein to carbohydrate ratios on growth and body composition of juvenile yellow catfish, Pelteobagrus fulvidraco (Siluriformes, Bagridae, Pelteobagrus)

期刊

AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
卷 40, 期 12, 页码 1410-1418

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02239.x

关键词

yellow catfish; Pelteobagrus fulvidraco; dietary protein and carbohydrate; growth performance; protein-sparing effect; protein; energy ratio

资金

  1. State Key Laboratory of Freshwater Ecology and Biotechnology, Institute of Hydrobiologia
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China [2007FB07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of dietary protein to carbohydrate ratios on growth and body composition of juvenile yellow catfish, Pelteobagrus fulvidraco. Nine diets were formulated to contain three protein levels (30%, 36% and 42%), each with three carbohydrate levels (24%, 30% and 36%). Each diet was randomly assigned to triplicate groups of 20 fish (initial mean body weight: 8.24 +/- 0.20 g) in indoor flow - through fibreglass tanks. The experiment continued for 8 weeks. Weight gain and specific growth rate were similar for the fish fed the 36% and 42% protein diets but higher than that fed the 30% protein diet. At the 36% protein level, carbohydrate contents varying from 24% to 36% (P/E ratio of 24.0-28.2 mg protein kJ(-1)) had no significant effects on growth performance and feed utilization (P > 0.05). Protein efficiency ratio tended to increase with dietary carbohydrate level at the same protein level. Dietary treatments significantly influenced body composition (P < 0.05), but not the condition factor, viscerosomatic index, hepatosomatic index and intraperitoneal fat ratio (P > 0.05). Based on these observations, 36% protein and 24-36% carbohydrate with the P/E ratio of 24.0-28.2 mg protein kJ(-1) seemed suitable for optimal growth and feed utilization, and carbohydrate could cause protein-sparing effect in diets for juvenile yellow catfish.

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