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 7
Fatty acid analysis of major carp species fed different commercial diets.
Fatty acids codes
Specie
Dietary treatments1
SEM2
p-Value
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
14 : 00
L. rohita
3.11b
3.10b
3.65a
3.62a
3.12b
3.11b
3.08c
3.10b
0.362
0.02
C. catla
3.12b
3.13b
3.52a
3.46a
3.14b
2.99c
2.98c
3.19b
0.442
0.01
C. carpio
3.23b
3.25b
3.45a
3.38a
3.23b
3.22b
3.14c
3.24b
0.326
<0.001
16 : 00
L. rohita
9.24b
9.22b
9.37a
9.35a
9.23b
9.22b
9.10c
9.22b
0.434
0.02
C. catla
9.31b
9.32b
9.49a
9.51a
9.32b
9.29b
9.17c
9.33b
0.524
0.03
C. carpio
9.17b
9.15b
9.38a
9.36a
9.15b
9.16b
9.06c
9.15b
0.435
0.03
18 : 00
L. rohita
5.62
5.61
5.64
5.62
5.62
5.64
5.65
5.64
0.841
0.23
C. catla
5.56
5.55
5.56
5.55
5.54
5.53
5.56
5.55
0.915
0.12
C. carpio
5.92
5.93
5.91
5.93
5.94
5.92
5.90
5.93
0.965
0.11
18 : 1 (n−9)
L. rohita
11.42
11.42
11.44
11.44
11.45
11.43
11.44
11.45
0.868
0.24
C. catla
11.63
11.64
11.65
11.63
11.59
11.61
11.62
11.63
0.848
0.13
C. carpio
11.62
11.58
11.61
11.59
11.60
11.62
11.59
11.58
0.738
0.31
18 : 2 (n−6)
L. rohita
14.53
14.56
14.52
14.53
14.56
14.51
14.55
14.52
0.348
0.09
C. catla
13.95
13.96
13.89
13.92
13.88
13.92
13.95
13.96
0.957
0.21
C. carpio
14.56
14.51
14.55
14.53
14.55
14.49
14.52
14.49
0.723
0.16
20 : 4 (n−3)
L. rohita
4.33
4.35
4.35
4.31
4.33
4.32
4.32
4.33
0.786
0.12
C. catla
4.01
4.01
4.02
4.02
4.05
4.05
4.00
4.06
0.134
0.99
C. carpio
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.16
4.18
4.16
4.17
4.17
0.516
0.62
22 : 6 (n−3)
L. rohita
15.23
15.26
15.24
15.23
15.23
15.21
15.25
15.28
0.636
0.08
C. catla
14.62
14.65
14.62
14.65
14.62
14.63
14.62
14.59
0.752
0.10
C. carpio
15.69
15.72
15.71
15.69
15.72
15.71
15.72
15.71
0.564
0.21
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.