| Literature DB >> 36171766 |
Masashi Ando1, Wen Jye Mok2, Yuji Maeda3, Ryoji Miki3, Takashi Fukuda1, Yasuyuki Tsukamasa1.
Abstract
Commercial aquaculture of yellowtail (Seriola quinqueradiata) is challenging, owing to deterioration of aquaculture environments. Offshore aquaculture may be a means of overcoming these problems. Here, we assessed the quality of flesh from offshore yellowtail (OY) bred for 1 year in an offshore floating flexible facility compared with coastal yellowtail (CY) cultured simultaneously in a coastal cage facility. The survival rate of the OY group was 94.46%, which was slightly lower than that of CY (98.18%). The feeding rate (feeding weight/fish weight) of CY was 0.4-0.5, whereas that of OY was only 0.3, possibly because poor weather conditions prevented feeding at the offshore facility. However, final fish weights did not differ significantly between both groups. In sensory tests, OY was inferior to CY in terms of oily taste. The lipid content in CY was significantly higher than that in OY. Hardness analysis revealed that OY muscles were harder than those of CY. There were no significant differences between OY and CY in overall sensory evaluations; thus, OY was judged as having equivalent value as a food product with CY. The redness of dark muscles was not significantly different on day 1 of refrigeration. However, the redness value of OY was significantly higher than that of CY on day 2. The inferior fattiness of OY relative to that of CY can be overcome by improving the feeding method. Therefore, offshore aquaculture with negligible environmental pollution may be effective for further development of aquaculture.Entities:
Keywords: coastal cage; meat quality; offshore floating flexible cage; yellowtail
Year: 2022 PMID: 36171766 PMCID: PMC9469846 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.2898
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 3.553
FIGURE 1Site map of farming facilities. Adapted from MDA Situational Indication Linkages (2019; https://www.msil.go.jp/; accessed on September 20, 2019, with modifications)
Details of farming facilities and their installation conditions
| Offshore | Coastal | |
|---|---|---|
| Size of net (m) | 30 × 30 × 20 | 10 × 10 × 10 |
| Material of net | Chemical fiber | Metal (bottom) and chemical fiber (sides) |
| Floating condition | Float and sink | Floating |
| Depth of setting site (m) | 64 | 30 |
| Average streaming rate at the setting site (knot) | 0.3 | 0.2 |
Yellowtail culturing conditions
| Offshore | Coastal | |
|---|---|---|
| Culturing period | April 2017 to March 2018 | April 2017 to March 2018 |
| Number of individuals at the start | 32,372 | 4279 |
| Food | Formula feed, IK16 | Formula feed, IK16 |
| Feeding methods | Blowing to a depth of 1 m, feeding to satiety | Whisper Feeder from above, feeding to satiety |
| Feeding intervals (days) | 1–2 | 1–2 |
| Maximum feeding time (min) | 100 | 20 |
| Maximum culturing density (kg/m3) | 10 | 20 |
| Body weight at the start (kg, average ±SE) | 1.90 ± 0.21 | 1.67 ± 0.22 |
| Body weight at the end (kg, average ±SE; | 5.13 ± 0.21 | 5.78 ± 0.25 |
| Survival rate (%) | 94.46 | 98.18 |
FIGURE 2Muscle parts of yellowtail used for each analytical item. A: Sensory test; B: firmness; C: K value; D: dark muscle color; E: proximate composition, free amino acids, fatty acids, ascorbic acid, α‐tocopherol, and iron
FIGURE 3Feeding rate during the culturing period. The values were calculated as follows: feeding rate = 100 x total amount of feed given per month / total fish weight at each farming facility per month. Total fish weight was calculated from the fish number, and each fish body was measured from video images
Physicochemical properties of yellowtail flesh at the end of culturing in offshore and coastal aquaculture facilities (average ±SE, n = 6)
| Offshore | Coastal | |
|---|---|---|
| K value (%, 1 day after chilled storage) | 5.2 ± 0.4 | 5.0 ± 0.6 |
| Firmness ( | 1.82 ± 0.03* | 1.71 ± 0.03 |
| Moisture (g/100 g) | 62.7 ± 0.6* | 60.2 ± 0.7 |
| Protein (g/100 g) | 23.5 ± 0.1* | 22.4 ± 0.2 |
| Lipid (g/100 g) | 13.0 ± 0.6* | 16.5 ± 0.8 |
| Ash (g/100 g) | 1.10 ± 0.00 | 1.07 ± 0.02 |
| Carbohydrate (g/100 g) | 0.03 ± 0.03 | 0.07 ± 0.05 |
| Energy (kcal/100 g) | 211.2 ± 5.3* | 238.2 ± 7.1 |
*Statistical differences were analyzed using Student's t‐tests (p <.05).
Evaluation of yellowtail meat quality using sensory tests in individuals reared in an offshore sink‐float type farming facility compared with those cultured in a coastal facility (average ±SE, n = 4)
| Color of dark muscle | −0.292 ± 0.172 |
| Color of ordinary muscle | 0.167 ± 0.281 |
| Sour taste | −0.250 ± 0.198 |
| Raw smell | 0.292 ± 0.181 |
| Oiliness | −0.417 ± 0.186* |
| Firmness | 0.458 ± 0.195* |
| Tongue feel | −0.250 ± 0.135 |
| Overall evaluation | −0.292 ± 0.224 |
*Statistical differences were analyzed using Student's t‐tests (p <.05).
Free amino acid contents in ordinary muscle of yellowtail from offshore and coastal aquaculture facilities (mg/100 g, average ±SE, n = 6)
| Offshore | Coastal | |
|---|---|---|
| Arginine | 3.17 ± 0.31 | 4.67 ± 0.88 |
| Lysine | 31.67 ± 4.20 | 30.17 ± 2.87 |
| Histidine | 1121.67 ± 30.49 | 1086.67 ± 21.55 |
| Phenylalanine | 1.67 ± 0.21 | 1.67 ± 0.21 |
| Tyrosine | 2.33 ± 0.21 | 3.17 ± 0.31 |
| Leucine | 4.17 ± 0.31 | 3.83 ± 0.60 |
| Isoleucine | 3.00 ± 0.26* | 1.50 ± 0.29 |
| Methionine | 1.83 ± 0.17* | 1.00 ± 0.00 |
| Valine | 4.00 ± 0.37* | 2.50 ± 0.22 |
| Alanine | 20.17 ± 1.01* | 27.00 ± 1.88 |
| Glycine | 7.00 ± 0.58* | 4.83 ± 0.60 |
| Proline | 1.40 ± 0.24* | 17.00 ± 5.11 |
| Glutamic acid | 20.67 ± 2.09* | 8.67 ± 1.96 |
| Serine | 4.50 ± 0.34 | 3.83 ± 0.91 |
| Threonine | 4.67 ± 0.67 | 3.67 ± 0.67 |
| Glutamine | 14.50 ± 1.63* | 4.67 ± 1.71 |
| Ornithine | 1.50 ± 0.34* | 4.83 ± 1.14 |
| Taurine | 0.025 ± 0.002* | 0.03 ± 0.002 |
| Anserine | 0.083 ± 0.003 | 0.09 ± 0.004 |
*Statistical differences were analyzed using Student's t‐tests (p <.05).
FIGURE 4Change in dark muscle color of yellowtail during chilled storage. A: L value, B: a* value, C: b* value. *Statistical differences between the coastal and offshore individuals on the same storage day were analyzed using Student’s t‐test (p < .05). n = 6
Fatty acid compositions in ordinary muscle of yellowtail from offshore and coastal aquaculture facilities (g/100 g, average ±SE, n = 6)
| Offshore | Coastal | |
|---|---|---|
| Total fatty acids | 10.32 ± 0.27* | 13.33 ± 0.74 |
| SFA | 2.83 ± 0.07* | 3.57 ± 0.19 |
| MFA | 3.80 ± 0.10* | 5.05 ± 0.29 |
| PUFA | 3.68 ± 0.10* | 4.72 ± 0.27 |
|
| 2.62 ± 0.07* | 3.23 ± 0.18 |
|
| 1.07 ± 0.03* | 1.48 ± 0.10 |
|
| 2.46 ± 0.06* | 2.19 ± 0.04 |
|
| 2.87 ± 0.07* | 3.88 ± 0.22 |
| C14:0 | 0.483 ± 0.017* | 0.567 ± 0.021 |
| C16:0 | 1.933 ± 0.049* | 2.450 ± 0.126 |
| C16:1 | 0.583 ± 0.017* | 0.733 ± 0.033 |
| C18:0 | 0.417 ± 0.017* | 0.533 ± 0.033 |
| C18:1n−9 | 2.650 ± 0.062* | 3.617 ± 0.206 |
| C18:1n−7 | 0.350 ± 0.022 | 0.433 ± 0.033 |
| C18:2n−6 | 1.050 ± 0.022* | 1.400 ± 0.086 |
| C18:3n−3 | 0.200 ± 0.000* | 0.267 ± 0.021 |
| C18:4n−3 | 0.200 ± 0.000 | 0.200 ± 0.000 |
| C20:1n−9 | 0.217 ± 0.017 | 0.267 ± 0.021 |
| C20:4n−6 | ND | 0.100 ± 0.000 |
| C20:4n−3 | ND | 0.100 ± 0.000 |
| C20:5n−3 | 0.717 ± 0.031* | 0.883 ± 0.048 |
| C22:5n−3 | 0.283 ± 0.017* | 0.350 ± 0.022 |
| C22:6n−3 | 1.217 ± 0.031* | 1.467 ± 0.071 |
*Statistical differences were analyzed using Student's t‐tests (p <.05).
Iron, ascorbic acid, and α‐tocopherol content in ordinary muscle of yellowtail from offshore and coastal aquaculture facilities (mg/100 g, average ±SE, n = 6)
| Offshore | Coastal | |
|---|---|---|
| Iron | 0.25 ± 0.01* | 0.28 ± 0.01 |
| Ascorbic acid | 10.8 ± 1.0 | 13.5 ± 1.4 |
|
| 3.93 ± 0.22 | 4.37 ± 0.25 |
*Statistical differences were analyzed using Student's t‐tests (p <.05).