Comparison of nutritional quality in fish maw product of croaker Protonibea diacanthus and perch Lates niloticus

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Jing Wen ; Ling Zeng ; Ziming Chen ; Youhou Xu
• 刊名：Journal of Ocean University of China
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：August 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：15
• 期：4
• 页码：726-730
• 全文大小：291 KB
• 刊物主题：Oceanography; Meteorology;
• 出版者：Springer Berlin Heidelberg
• ISSN：1993-5021
• 卷排序：15

文摘

Fish maw (the dried swimbladders of fish) is ranked in the list of the four sea treasures in Chinese cuisine. Fish maw is mainly produced from croaker, which is the most highly priced. However, some of the fish maw being sold as croaker maw are in fact not from croaker, but from the Nile perch Lates niloticus. The present work determined and compared the proximate composition, amino acid and fatty acid composition of croaker Protonibea diacanthus maw and perch L. niloticus maw. The results indicated that both maws were high protein sources and low in fat content. The dominant amino acids in both maws were glycine, proline, glutamic acid, alanine and arginine. These amino acids constituted 66.2% and 66.4% of the total amino acids in P. diacanthus and L. niloticus, respectively. The ratio of FAA: TAA (functional amino acids: total amino acids) in both maws were 0.69. This is a good explanation for why fish maws have been widely utilized as a traditional tonic and remedy in Asia. Except valine and histidine, all the essential amino acid contents in P. diacanthus were higher than in L. niloticus. Moreover, croaker P. diacanthus maw contained more AA and DHA than perch L. niloticus maw, showing a higher ratio of n-3 / n-6, which is more desirable.Keywordsfish mawproximate compositionamino acidsfatty acids