PDF
Full
Outline
Normally, proper fermentation can be an efficient and widely used method to improve feed quality in animal rearing; however, the studies on crustaceans, especially Eriocheir sinensis, remain limited. This study aimed to investigate whether feed fermentation could meliorate dietary nutritional value and benefit E. sinensis rearing. First, non-fermented feed (NFD) and fermented feed (FD) were produced and assessed, respectively. Then, the "Y" maze feed choice behavior test (180 times; 30 times, 6 rounds) was conducted to assess the attractiveness of these 2 feeds for crabs. Finally, a total of 80 crabs (44.10 ± 0.80 g) were randomly assigned into 2 groups with 4 replicates, and fed the experimental diets for 8 weeks to evaluate the effects of each feed on growth, antioxidant capacity, meat flavor, and intestinal microbiota. In this study, FD showed higher levels of crude protein (P < 0.01), soluble protein (P < 0.01), amino acids (P < 0.05), lactic acid (P < 0.001), and lower levels of crude fiber (P < 0.05) and antinutritional factors (agglutinin, trypsin inhibitor, glycinin, and β-conglycinin) (P < 0.001) than NFD. Additionally, FD was more attractive to crabs than NFD (P < 0.01) and it stimulated the appetite of crabs more than NFD (P < 0.05). The growth performance, feed efficiency, and digestive enzyme activity of FD-fed crabs were significantly higher than those of NFD-fed crabs (P < 0.05). The electronic sensory measurements and free amino acid profiles revealed that the FD diet had positive impacts on the meat flavor of crabs, particularly in "sweet" and "umami" tastes. Moreover, the antioxidant capacity of FD-fed crabs was significantly higher than that of NFD-fed crabs (P < 0.05). Fermented feed also affected the diversity and composition of intestinal microflora. The functional prediction of microbial communities showed that crabs fed FD had a better microecological environment in the intestine. In conclusion, the fermentation of aquafeed could be an effective approach to enhance feed quality and therefore benefit E. sinensis rearing.
PDF
39
10
| 科 Family | 属数 Number of genus | 种数 Number of species | 占总种数比例 Percentage of total species (%) | 属 Genus | 种数 Number of species | 占总种数比例 Percentage of total species (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae | 2 | 11 | 5.26 | 鹅膏菌属 Amanita | 10 | 4.78 |
| 小菇科 Mycenaceae | 2 | 12 | 5.74 | 丝盖伞属 Inocybe | 5 | 2.39 |
| 多孔菌科 Polyporaceae | 8 | 14 | 6.70 | 蜡蘑属 Laccaria | 5 | 2.39 |
| 红菇科 Russulaceae | 3 | 23 | 11.00 | 小皮伞属 Marasmius | 6 | 2.87 |
| 小菇属 Mycena | 11 | 5.26 | ||||
| 光柄菇属 Pluteus | 5 | 2.39 | ||||
| 红菇属 Russula | 17 | 8.13 | ||||
| 栓菌属 Trametes | 5 | 2.39 |
关闭全屏
No. 86 Xueyuan South Road, Haidian District, Beijing
010-62199257
qkjq@cast.org.cn
Copyright © 2025 China Association for Science and Technology. All rights reserved. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.
Sponsored by the Office of the Leading Group for Cybersecurity and Informatization of CAST, and supported by Science and Technology Review Publishing House
