Comparison of body composition and sensory quality of wild and farmed whitefish (Coregonus macrophthalmus [Nüsslin, 1882])

Abstract

Summary This study compared the body composition (fillet yield, chemical composition and lipid quality of fillets) and sensory quality of captured wild (by gillnet in August 2011) with experimentally raised farmed (reared in concrete flow‐through raceways, average water temperature 10 ± 3°C) whitefish, Coregonus macrophthalmus, from Lake Constance. The study was conducted in 2011 using 28 wild and 24 farmed market‐sized fish of approximately equal total lengths (25.1 ± 1.21 and 25.6 ± 1.28 cm). Farmed female Coregonus macrophthalmus exhibited a 3.3% lower fillet yield resulting from larger gonads and a shallower body shape. The protein contents of farmed and wild fillets were equal (17.5% vs. 17.4%), but farmed fish fillets contained less moisture (76.1% vs.77.4%), less ash (1.2% vs. 1.6%), and more lipid (5.1% vs. 4.1%) than wild‐caught specimens. Levels of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) were higher in farmed fish (42.0 vs. 31.0 g/100 g lipid), as well as the levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA; 26.0 vs. 19.7 g/100 g lipid), in particular 22:6n−3 (docosahexaenoic acid, DHA; 7.3 vs. 2.1 g/100 g lipid). Conversely, wild fish fillets contained significantly more 20:4n−6 (arachidonic acid, AA; 1.6 vs. 0.4 g/100 g lipid) and 20:5n−3 (eicosapentaenoic acid, EPA; 4.1 vs. 3.2 g/100 g lipid). Sensory evaluation of odour, colour, texture and flavour by an experienced six‐person panel revealed a significant preference for the colour (79% vs. 21%) of farmed fish fillets. In conclusion, farmed whitefish can be strong competitors to wild whitefish in terms of product quality, with higher levels of healthy fatty acids and a more attractive fillet colour. Farmed Coregonus macrophthalmus thus represents a promising and pragmatic approach, compensating for the current capture decline in the whitefish fisheries of Lake Constance.

Body composition and sensory quality of wild and farmed brown-trout (Salmo trutta) and of farmed rainbow-trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

“…Thirty six fatty acids were reported, including sixteen SFA, nine MUFA and eleven PUFA (Table 2). Similarly to results obtained by several authors (KAYA & ERDEM 2009;YEŞILAYER & GENÇ 2013, OZ & DIKEL, 2015GOEBEL et al, 2016;GULLER et al, 2017) the largest amounts of total SFA were reported both in wild and farmed brown trout. In the present study palmitic acid was identified as the predominant SFA in all trout, being the highest content reported in farmed brown trout (16.64g/100g of total fatty acids).…”

Sensory quality and consumers’ acceptance towards wild and farmed brown-trout (Salmo trutta) and farmed rainbow-trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

“…These discrepancies found among different research results might be related with both with fish intrinsic and extrinsic features (geographical origin, genotype, season, sexual maturation, age, feeding, water quality, presence of disease and parasites), which influence fish chemical composition and, consequently, fish sensory variables (taste, texture, and appearance) which, in turn, determine fish quality, consumer acceptance and commercialization (Grigorakis, 2007;Green-Petersen & Hyldig, 2010;Oken et al, 2012;Claret et al, 2014;Suomela et al, 2016). Farmed fish sensorial quality and acceptance is also influenced phenotypic responses to the rearing environment (Goebel et al, 2017). Green-Petersen & Hyldig (2010) found out that even fish from the same aquaculture batch can present considerable variation in fish body chemical composition.…”