Comparison of wild and farmed sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L) lipid quality

The aim of the present work was to compare the fatty acids profiles of wild and farmed Mediterranean sea bass (Dicentrarhus labrax L.). Wild fish exhibited higher moisture content 74.6 (±1.1%) compared to the farmed (69.1 (±1.8%) Total fillet lipid content was and (1.68% ±1.9) and (7.31% ±1.59) in t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inProcedia food science Vol. 1; pp. 1139 - 1145
Main Authors Lenas, Dimitrios, Chatziantoniou, Soumela, Nathanailides, Cosmas, Triantafillou, Dimitrios
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Elsevier Ltd 2011
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The aim of the present work was to compare the fatty acids profiles of wild and farmed Mediterranean sea bass (Dicentrarhus labrax L.). Wild fish exhibited higher moisture content 74.6 (±1.1%) compared to the farmed (69.1 (±1.8%) Total fillet lipid content was and (1.68% ±1.9) and (7.31% ±1.59) in the wild and farmed fish, respectively. Total perivisceral fat was higher in farmed (25.87 ±5.78) compared to wild sea bass (0.11 ±0.02). Biochemical differences were also observed in the fatty acid profile of fillet and perivisceral fat. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, C22:6 n-3) was dominant in wild fish fillets instead of linoleic acid (C18:2 n-6) in the farmed fish. An increased presence of linoleic acid and a reduction of n-3/n-6 ratio in the fillets of farmed sea bass, most likely resulted from fish feeds rich in terrestrial plant oils, which compromised the nutritional quality of farmed fish. In the perivisceral fat, the dominant fatty acid was C18:1n-9 in both wild and farmed fish, followed by C16:1n-7, C22:1n-9 and C20:1n- 9 in wild, and C20:1n-9, C22:1n-9 and C16:1n-7 in farmed fish. The results of the present work indicate that compared to the farmed fish, the wild sea bas exhibits significantly higher concentration of fatty acids with well known health benefits.
ISSN:2211-601X
2211-601X
DOI:10.1016/j.profoo.2011.09.170