+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparative analysis and evaluation of nutritional quality of tilapia in three aquaculture modes


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          [Objective] To explore the effects of three different culture modes on the nutritional quality of tilapia muscle, including in-pond raceway system aquaculture (IPRS group), paddy field aquaculture (paddy field group) and pond aquaculture (pond group), so as to provide reference for improving the quality and efficiency of tilapia culture.

          [Method] The GIFT ( Oreochromis niloticus) in IPRS group, paddy field group and pond group were selected with body weights at 595±88, 625±75 and 644±21 g, respectively. The nutritional value of GIFT muscle was evaluated by analyzing and comparing the nutritional components of muscle with each gram of nitrogen amino acid score model, complete protein score model and texture characteristic parameters.

          [Result] In terms of conventional nutrients, the water content and crude ash content had no significant difference among the three groups ( P>0.05), the crude fat content of GIFT muscle in IPRS group was significantly higher than that in pond group and paddy field group ( P<0.05, the same below), and the crude protein content of GIFT muscle in paddy field group was significantly higher than that in IPRS group and paddy field group. In terms of amino acid composition, aspartic acid (Asp), glutamic acid (Glu), leucine (Leu) and lysine (Lys) contents were the highest. The total essential amino acid (ΣEAA) of GIFT muscle in paddy field group was significantly higher than that in pond group and IPRS group. The EAA/total amino acid (ΣTAA) ranged from 0.39 to 0.41, and ΣEAA/total non-essential amino acid(ΣNEAA) ranged from 0.65 to 0.68 in the three groups. In the evaluation of EAA, the total amount of EAA (2689 mg/g N) and the index of essential amino acid (EAAI, 87.96) in GIFT muscle of IPRS group were the highest, followed by pond group and rice field group. In terms of muscle texture characteristics, the hardness of GIFT muscle in IPRS group was significantly lower than that in paddy field group and pond group, and the stickiness was significantly higher than that in paddy field group and pond group.

          [Conclusion] The comprehensive evaluation of GIFT meat quality under the pond engineering recirculating water culture mode is the best, and the culture effect is good, which is consistent with the requirements of energy conservation, emission reduction, quality improvement and efficiency, so it can be vigorously promoted in suitable areas.


          摘要 【目的】 探讨池塘工程化循环流水养殖(水槽组)、稻田养殖(稻田组)和池塘养殖(池塘组)3种不同养殖模式 对罗非鱼肌肉营养品质的影响, 为罗非鱼养殖业的提质增效提供参考依据。 【方法】以吉富品系尼罗罗非鱼(GIFT, Oreochromis niloticus)为研究对象, 选取平均体质量为595±88、25±75和644±21 g的罗非鱼分别词养于水槽组、稻田 组和池塘组养殖模式下, 通过每克氮氨基酸评分模式、完全蛋白质评分模式和质构特性参数评价对肌肉营养成分进 行分析比较, 判断罗非鱼肌肉的营养价值。 【结果】 在常规营养成分方面, 3组罗非鱼肌肉水分和粗灰分含量无显著差 异( P>0.05), 水槽组罗非鱼肌肉粗脂肪含量显著高于池塘组和稻田组( P<0.05,下同), 稻田组罗非鱼肌肉粗蛋白含量 显著高于水槽组和池塘组。在氨基酸组成方面, 天门冬氨酸(Asp)、谷氨酸(Glu)、亮氨酸(Leu)和赖氨酸(Lys)含量 最高, 稻田组罗非鱼肌肉必需氨基酸总量(ΣEAA)显著高于池塘组和水槽组, 3组罗非鱼肌肉ΣEAA/氨基酸总量 (ΣTAA)范围为0.39~0.41, ΣEAA/非必需氨基酸总量(ΣNEAA)为0.65~0.68。在必需氨基酸评价方面, 水槽组罗非鱼 肌肉必需氨基酸总量(2689 mg/g N)和必需氨基酸指数(EAAI, 87.96)最高, 池塘组次之, 稻田组最低。在肌肉质构 特性方面, 水槽组罗非鱼肌肉硬度显著低于稻田组和池塘组, 胶黏性显著高于稻田组和池塘组。 【结论】 池塘工程化循 环流水养殖模式下生产的罗非鱼肉质综合评价最佳, 养殖效果好, 且符合当前节能减排、提质增效的要求, 可在适宜 区域内大力推广应用。

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal of Southern Agriculture
          Science Press (Nanling, China )
          01 January 2021
          01 May 2021
          : 52
          : 1
          : 206-212
          [1] 1Guangxi Academy of Fishery Science, Nanning 530021, China
          [2] 2South China Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Guangzhou 510642, China
          [3] 3Institute of aquaculture, Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hefei 230001, China
          [4] 4School of Fisheries and life, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China
          Author notes
          *Corresponding author: LIANG Jun-neng, E-mail: 1209930732@ 123456qq.com
          © 2021 Journal of Southern Agriculture

          This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

          Self URI (journal-page): http://www.nfnyxb.com/EN/
          Funded by: Construction Project of National Modern Agricultural Industrial Technology System
          Award ID: CARS-46
          Funded by: Anhui Science and Technology Major Project
          Award ID: 18030701169
          Funded by: Nanning Scientific Research and Technology Development Plan Project
          Award ID: 20202104
          Funded by: Guangxi Agricultural Science and Technology Self Financing Project
          Award ID: Z202064
          Journal Article

          Crops,Animal agriculture,Agricultural ecology,General agriculture,Agriculture,Horticulture
          GIFT(Oreochromis niloticus),in-pond raceway system,rice field culture,pond culture,nutrient composition,analysis


          Comment on this article