| Literature DB >> 25178374 |
Dong-Hoon Lee1, Seong-Ryul Lim1, Jung-Jo Han1, Sang-Woo Lee1, Chang-Six Ra1, Jeong-Dae Kim1.
Abstract
A 12 week growth study was carried out to investigate the supplemental effects of dietary garlic powder (GP) on growth, feed utilization and whole body composition changes of fingerling sterlet sturgeon Acipenser ruthenus (averaging weight, 5.5 g). Following a 24-h fasting, 540 fish were randomly distributed to each of 18 tanks (30 fish/tank) under a semi-recirculation freshwater system. The GP of 0.5% (GP0.5), 1% (GP1), 1.5% (GP1.5), 2% (GP2) and 3% (GP3) was added to the control diet (GP0) containing 43% protein and 16% lipid. After the feeding trial, weight gain (WG) of fish fed GP1.5, GP2 and GP3 were significantly higher (p<0.05) than those of fish fed GP0, GP0.5 and GP1. Feed efficiency and specific growth rate (SGR) showed a similar trend to WG. Protein efficiency ratio of fish fed GP1.5, GP2, and GP3 were significantly higher (p<0.05) than those of fish groups fed the other diets. A significant difference (p<0.05) was found in whole body composition (moisture, crude protein, crude lipid, ash, and fiber) of fish at the end of the experiment. Significantly higher (p<0.05) protein and lipid retention efficiencies (PRE and LRE) were also found in GP1.5, GP2, and GP3 groups. Broken-line regression model analysis and second order polynomial regression model analysis relation on the basis of SGR and WG indicated that the dietary optimal GP level could be greater than 1.77% and 1.79%, but less than 2.95% and 3.18% in fingerling sterlet sturgeon. The present study suggested that dietary GP for fingerling sterlet sturgeon could positively affect growth performance and protein retention.Entities:
Keywords: Acipenser ruthenus; Body Composition; Feed Efficiency; Garlic Powder; Protein Retention; Weight Gain
Year: 2014 PMID: 25178374 PMCID: PMC4150197 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2014.14087
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Ingredient composition and chemical analysis of the experimental diets1
| Ingredients | GP0 | GP0.5 | GP1 | GP1.5 | GP2 | GP3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LT fish meal | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Fish meal | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Wheat flour | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Corn gluten meal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Soybean meal | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 |
| Squid liver powder | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Lecithin | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Choline | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Betaine | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Vitamin mix | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Mineral mix | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Fish oil | 9.4 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 9.4 |
| Filler as rice bran | 10 | 9.5 | 9 | 8.5 | 8 | 7 |
| Garlic powder | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 3 |
| Chemical composition (%, DM) | ||||||
| Protein | 43.8 | 43.7 | 43.5 | 42.4 | 43.2 | 42.8 |
| Lipid | 15.5 | 15.5 | 15.6 | 16.1 | 16.0 | 16.1 |
| Ash | 9.7 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.4 | 9.3 | 9.7 |
| Fiber | 6.5 | 6.4 | 5.9 | 6.1 | 6.0 | 5.4 |
| Gross energy (kJ/g) | 22.6 | 22.7 | 21.4 | 21.3 | 21.2 | 21.0 |
GP, garlic powder; LT, low temperature; DM, dry matter.
All ingredients were provided with Cargill Agri Purina Ltd., Korea.
Obtained from local market at Gyeonggi Province, in Korea.
Values are means of three determinations.
Growth performance of fingerling sterlet sturgeon fed diets without (GP0) or with (GP0.5, GP1, GP1.5, GP2 and GP3) garlic powder diets for 12 wk1
| Growth performance | Diets | p-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| GP0 | GP0.5 | GP1 | GP1.5 | GP2 | GP3 | ||
| Initial average weight (g) | 5.50 ±0.03 | 5.46 ±0.02 | 5.51 ±0.05 | 5.48 ±0.02 | 5.53 ±0.03 | 5.51 ±0.02 | |
| Final average weight (g) | 25.64 ±1.12 | 26.14 ±0.28 | 27.01 ±0.39 | 29.60 ±0.25 | 30.16 ±0.20 | 30.18 ±0.21 | |
| WG (%) | 366.4 ±2.3c | 379.2 ±4.3b | 390.1 ±5.9b | 440.4 ±6.2a | 445.0 ±3.7a | 448.0 ±3.1a | <0.001 |
| FE (%) | 69.3 ±3.7c | 70.9 ±0.5bc | 73.2 ±1.2b | 82.0 ±1.3a | 84.0 ±0.9a | 84.2 ±0.4a | <0.001 |
| SGR (%) | 1.83 ±0.04c | 1.87 ±0.01bc | 1.89 ±0.01b | 2.01 ±0.01a | 2.02 ±0.01a | 2.02 ±0.01a | 0.001 |
| PER | 1.62 ±0.09b | 1.62 ±0.01b | 1.68 ±0.03b | 1.93 ±0.03a | 1.94 ±0.02a | 1.97 ±0.01a | 0.003 |
| HSI (%) | 2.08 ±0.13a | 1.87 ±0.05b | 1.81 ±0.04bc | 1.83 ±0.08bc | 1.74 ±0.09c | 1.71 ±0.11c | 0.001 |
| CF7 | 0.36 ±0.04c | 0.43 ±0.03bc | 0.42 ±0.04bc | 0.42 ±0.06bc | 0.52 ±0.08a | 0.44 ±0.07ab | 0.001 |
| Survival rate (%) | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
GP, garlic powder; WG, weight gain; FE, feed efficiency; SGR, specific growth rate; PER, protein efficiency ratio; HSI, hepatosomatic index; CF, condition factor; SE, standard error; DM, dry matter.
Means of three replicates groups, values are presented as mean±SE. Means in each row with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05).
WG (%) = [final weight (g) − initial weight (g)]×100/initial weight (g).
FE (%) = wet weight gain (g)×100/feed intake (g, DM).
SGR (%) = {ln final weight (g) − ln initial weight (g)]/days}×100.
PER = wet weight gain (g)/protein intake (g, DM).
HSI (%) = liver weight (g)×100/body weight (g). 7 CF = [fish weight (g)/fish length (cm)3]×100.
Figure 1Broken-line analysis on specific growth rate of fingerling sterlet sturgeon to dietary garlic powder levels.
Figure 2Broken-line analysis on weight gain of fingerling sterlet sturgeon to dietary garlic powder levels.
Figure 3The second order polynomial analysis on specific growth rate of fingerling sterlet sturgeon to dietary garlic powder levels.
Figure 4The second order polynomial analysis on weight gain of fingerling sterlet sturgeon to dietary garlic powder levels.
Proximate composition of whole body of fingerling sterlet sturgeon fed without (GP0) or with (GP0.5, GP1, GP2, and GP3) garlic powder diets for 12 wk (%, as-is basis)1
| Treatments | Moisture | Crude protein | Crude lipid | Ash | Fiber | PRE | LRE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | 84.90±0.32 | 10.22±0.09 | 1.19±0.05 | 2.42±0.02 | 0.18±0.01 | ||
| GP0 | 77.30±0.05a | 13.06±0.17d | 6.71±0.07a | 3.01±0.09b | 2.05±0.08b | 23.2±0.4c | 39.1±0.5a |
| GP0.5 | 77.47±0.27a | 13.32±0.11d | 5.99±0.05b | 2.45±0.06c | 1.75±0.07c | 22.9±0.2c | 33.4±0.2d |
| GP1 | 76.88±0.25ab | 13.99±0.03c | 6.05±0.02b | 2.87±0.08b | 1.19±0.06d | 24.3±1.2b | 33.2±1.4d |
| GP1.5 | 75.11±0.48 c | 15.06±0.44a | 5.84±0.09c | 3.24±0.10a | 2.21±0.04a | 31.2±0.5a | 34.1±0.5cd |
| GP2 | 75.50±0.01c | 14.82±0.07a | 5.62±0.14d | 2.93±0.15b | 2.04±0.06b | 30.8±0.3a | 34.7±0.3c |
| GP3 | 76.29±0.64b | 14.49±0.11b | 5.59±0.05d | 3.27±0.01a | 1.27±0.04d | 30.4±0.1a | 36.7±0.1b |
| p-value | 0.003 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 |
GP, garlic powder; PRE, Protein retention efficiency; LRE, lipid retention efficiency; SE, standard error.
Values are means±SE of three replicates with 2 determinations per replicate for each final group. Means with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (p<0.05). ns, non significant (p>0.05).
PRE (%) = body protein gain (g)/dry protein intake (g)×100.
LRE (%) = body lipid gain (g)/dry lipid intake (g)×100.