Effects of Different Aquafeed Sources on Growth Performance, Oxidative Capacity, and Fatty Acid Profile of Three Carps Reared in the Semi-Intensive Composite Culture System
Table 5
Carcass chemical composition of major carp species fed different commercial diets.
Parameter
Species
Dietary treatments1
SEM2
p-Value
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
Dry matter (%)
L. rohita
41.54
41.62
41.23
41.88
40.52
41.41
42.41
40.23
0.162
0.35
C. catla
42.39
41.00
43.53
41.6
43.67
41.89
43.14
43.25
0.354
0.96
C. carpio
42.58
42.39
42.59
42.63
42.5
42.38
42.91
43.56
0.760
0.94
Crude protein (%)
L. rohita
16.65
16.62
16.29
16.94
16.88
16.92
16.38
16.89
0.689
0.14
C. catla
16.69
16.33
16.35
16.48
16.32
16.22
16.66
16.87
0.554
0.97
C. carpio
16.52
16.28
16.54
16.57
16.78
16.38
16.78
16.5
0.863
0.60
Fat (%)
L. rohita
7.52
7.81
7.61
7.25
7.92
7.88
7.39
7.01
0.907
0.94
C. catla
7.12
7.19
7.22
7.25
7.14
7.34
7.16
7.13
0.968
0.48
C. carpio
7.35
7.62
6.99
7.91
7.67
7.83
7.84
7.83
0.68
0.67
Ash (%)
L. rohita
4.79
4.28
4.47
3.79
4.94
4.65
4.70
3.98
0.29
0.65
C. catla
5.55
5.67
5.48
5.23
5.47
5.35
5.40
5.64
0.973
0.64
C. carpio
5.99
6.05
5.68
5.89
6.05
6.10
5.73
5.97
0.935
0.73
Note. 1Dietary treatments = (D1–D8) feeds of different sources and 2SEM = standard error of means. a−eSuperscripts indicate the significant differences among means within a row.
