Differentiation of common marketable-size rainbow trouts (Oncorhynchus mykiss) based on nutritional and dietetic traits: A comparative study

14Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In order to prepare a complementary guideline in nutritional quality for selecting an appropriate market-size rainbow trout, proximate composition, fatty acids' profile and sensory properties of most available market-size trout with three different average weight of 225±25 (low weight, LW), 350±30 (medium weight, MW) and 480±30 g (high weight, HW) were evaluated. Lipid and protein contents showed a tendency to increase with weight. The ratios of n-6/n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) (1.01-1.59) in present study were lower than the recommended harmful value of n-6/n-3 PUFAs ratio (4.0 at maximum). In general n-3 PUFAs, especially docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) levels indicated a tendency to decrease with weight. Also, with increasing weight, increasing trends of DHA/EPA and n-6/n-3 PUFAs ratios were found. Lower atherogenic index (AI) and thrombogenicity index (TI) values were observed in HW and MW trout in comparison with LW trout (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in odour and texture of studied trout fillets, while colour of samples significantly differed between treatments. It is worth mentioning that MW market-size trout for its attractive colour in judges' view showed higher general acceptability scores (P<0.05). In most of studied parameters any significant difference was observed between MW and HW trout. Therefore, it can be concluded that the MW trout was considered as high-quality market-size trout for human consumption. © 2013 Taylor & Francis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ehsani, A., Jasour, M. S., & Khodayari, M. (2013). Differentiation of common marketable-size rainbow trouts (Oncorhynchus mykiss) based on nutritional and dietetic traits: A comparative study. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 41(4), 387–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2013.783483

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free