Premium
Utilization of several plant proteins by gibel carp ( Carassius auratus gibelio )
Author(s) -
Weibo Xie,
Wanxue Zhu,
Cui,
Rong-Jia Yang
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
journal of applied ichthyology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.392
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1439-0426
pISSN - 0175-8659
DOI - 10.1046/j.1439-0426.2001.00275.x
Subject(s) - biology , carp , methionine , cottonseed meal , fish meal , zoology , rapeseed , soybean meal , plant protein , cottonseed , meal , carassius auratus , fish <actinopterygii> , food science , amino acid , biochemistry , fishery , ecology , raw material
Six isonitrogenous (gross protein content 35%) and isoenergetic (gross energy content 17 kJ g −1 ) diets were formulated to investigate the effects of inclusion of plant proteins on the gibel carp ( Carassius auratus gibelio L.). The plant proteins tested were: soybean cake (SBC), potato protein concentrate (PPC), peanut cake (PNC), cottonseed cake (CSC) and rapeseed cake (RSC). Fish meal (FM) was used as control. In each diet, 27% of the protein was supplied by fish meal, and the rest supplied by the plant protein tested. Each diet was fed to three groups of gibel carp for 8 weeks in a recirculation system. Specific growth rate (SGR) in fish fed the control diet was significantly higher than those in the other groups, and SGR in fish fed the PPC was significantly lower than in fish fed other plant proteins. There was no significant difference in SGR among the other groups. Feeding rates were ranked in the order: RSC > CSC > FM > PNC > SBC > PPC. Conversion efficiency was highest in groups fed FM, SBC and PNC, followed by groups fed CSC and RSC, and was lowest in the group fed PPC. The fish fed PPC showed lower protein retention than those fed FM and SBC. FM showed highest energy retention while PPC showed lowest. There was no significant relationship between SGR and intake of digestible protein (g g −1 day −1 ), digestible lysine (g g −1 day −1 ), digestible methionine (g g −1 day −1 ) or digestible total essential amino acids (g g −1 day −1 ), suggesting that the differences in SGR could not alone account for any of these variables.