The Effects of Composite Enzymes in Diets on Growth, Carcass Composition and Specific Enzyme Activities of Juvenile Paralichthys lethostigma

Article Preview

Abstract:

The study was conducted to investigate the effects of commercial composite enzymes (CE) on growth, carcass composition and specific enzyme activities of juvenile flounder Paralichthys lethostigma. Four diets were formulated: one diet contained no CE (the control), the three others provided graded levels of CE (0.5%, 1% and 1.5%). Each diet was fed to pentaplicate of flounder juveniles for 28 days in aquaria (50×40×30 cm, water volume 50 L). The growth parameters (final wet weight, specific growth rate: SGR, feed conversion rate: FCR and apparent digestibility: AD) were significantly affected (P0.05). The CE had significant effects (P<0.05) on the specific activities of neural protease, alkine protease and amylase, but not on acid protease, amimopeptidase and alkine phosphatase. The pattern of the specific activities of neural protease, alkine protease and amylase was similar to that of SGR with fish fed diets containing 1.5% of CE exhibited the significantly higher activities (P<0.05). The results demonstrated that the supplement of CE in diets could significantly improve growth performance and digestive enzyme activities of flounder juveniles.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 518-523)

Pages:

5493-5499

Citation:

Online since:

May 2012

Authors:

Export:

Price:

[1] G. Degani and A. Revach: Aquaculture Research. Vol. 22, 4 (1991), pp.397-403

Google Scholar

[2] C. L. Cahu and J. L. Zambonino Infante: Fish Physiol. Biochem. Vol. 14 (1995), pp.209-214

Google Scholar

[3] S. Kolkovski, A. Tandler and G. W. Kissil: Fish Physiol. Biochem. Vol. 12 (1993), pp.203-209

Google Scholar

[4] J. Walford and T. J. Lam: Aquaculture. Vol. 109 (1993), pp.187-205

Google Scholar

[5] AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). Official Methods of Analysis, 14th edition, Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA (1998), p.1141

DOI: 10.5962/bhl.title.44636

Google Scholar

[6] K. Dabrowski and J. Glogowski: Hydrobiologia. Vol. 52, 2 (1977), pp.171-174

Google Scholar

[7] P. Metais and J. Bieth: Ann. Biol. Clin. Vol. 26 (1968), pp.133-142

Google Scholar

[8] J. W. Porteous and B. Clark: Biochem. J. Vol. 96 (1965), pp.159-171

Google Scholar

[9] A. M. Ugolev, V. V. Yegorova and V. V. Kuz'mima: Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B. Vol. 76 (1983), pp.627-635

Google Scholar

[10] M. M. Bradford: Anal. Biochem. Vol. 72 (1976), pp.248-254

Google Scholar

[11] S. Kolkovski, A. Tandler and M. S. Izquierdo: Aquaculture. Vol.148 (1997), pp.313-322

Google Scholar

[12] K. D. Cain and D. L. Garling: Prog. Fish Cult. Vol. 57 (1995), pp.114-119

Google Scholar

[13] W. Halangk, M. M. Lerch and B. Brandt-Nedelev: J Clin Invest. Vol. 106, 6 (2000), p.773–781

Google Scholar

[14] A. Abi-Ayad and P. Kestemont: Aquaculture. Vol. 128 (1994), pp.163-173

Google Scholar

[15] I. Chakrabarti, K. K. Gani and R. Chajki: Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A. 112, 1 (1995), pp.167-177

Google Scholar

[16] C. L. Cahu, A. Zambonino Infante and P. Peres: Aquaculture. Vol. 161 (1998), pp.479-489

Google Scholar

[17] M. Boonyaratpalin, P. Suraneiranat and T. Tunpibal: Aquaculture. Vol. 161 (1998), pp.67-78

Google Scholar