Physicochemical, micro-structural, and textural properties of different parts from farmed common carp (Cyprinus carpio)

Figures & data

Figure 1. The different portions of farmed common carp (Cyprinus carpio) used in the analysis; (1) upper back, (2) lower back, (3) tail, (4) jaw, (5) chest, and (6) belly.

Table 1. Proximate composition of muscles from six portions of farmed common carp (Cyprinus carpio).

Total weight (%)	Upper back	Lower back	Tail	Jaw	Chest	Belly
Moisture	77.8 ± 0.0^d	78.7 ± 0.0^d	78.9 ± 0.0^d	75.3 ± 0.0^c	65.0 ± 0.0^a	68.1 ± 0.0^b
Protein*	76.4 ± 0.8^e	72.5 ± 0.5^d	73.1 ± 1.4^d	60.6 ± 1.6^c	47.3 ± 0.5^a	49.6 ± 1.6^b
Lipids*	16.5 ± 0.4^a	17.9 ± 1.7^a	20.9 ± 0.6^b	32.1 ± 1.9^c	46.2 ± 1.9^d	45.1 ± 0.6^d
Ash*	5.26 ± 0.04^e	4.84 ± 0.03^d	4.71 ± 0.11^c	3.22 ± 0.00^a	3.42 ± 0.02^b	3.33 ± 0.05^ab
Carbohydrate*	1.22 ± 0.02^a	2.37 ± 0.17^d	1.77 ± 0.05^c	2.55 ± 0.04^e	1.26 ± 0.03^a	1.39 ± 0.42^b

Each value is expressed as means ± S.D (n = 3).

Values in the same row followed by different superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).

*The protein, lipid, ash, and carbohydrate content was calculated on a dry weight basis.

Table 2. Physicochemical properties of muscles from six portions of farmed common carp (Cyprinus carpio).

	Upper back	Lower back	Tail	Jaw	Chest	Belly
MPE^(^1^)	1.60 ± 0.04^d	1.32 ± 0.09^c	1.09 ± 0.05^b	1.28 ± 0.09^c	1.12 ± 0.11^b	0.91 ± 0.05^a
WHC^(^2^)	96.0 ± 1.2^bc	97.0 ± 0.6^c	95.5 ± 0.6^bc	95.5 ± 1.0^bc	91.7 ± 1.2^a	93.4 ± 2.2^ab
pH	6.97 ± 0.03^a	6.94 ± 0.02^a	6.92 ± 0.01^a	6.93 ± 0.01^a	6.92 ± 0.01^a	6.92 ± 0.01^a
L*	46.6 ± 2.3^ab	45.9 ± 2.9^ab	41.7 ± 2.5^a	48.2 ± 1.5^b	48.4 ± 3.8^b	44.5 ± 0.4^ab
a*	–0.61 ± 0.14^b	–1.16 ± 0.22^a	–1.42 ± 0.15^a	2.68 ± 0.43^e	1.13 ± 0.16^c	1.88 ± 0.46^d
b*	–1.45 ± 0.06^b	–2.28 ± 0.21^a	–1.93 ± 0.36^ab	1.39 ± 0.26^c	0.95 ± 0.10^c	2.02 ± 0.44^d

Each value is expressed as means ± S.D. (n = 3).

Values in the same row followed by different superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).

⁽¹⁾MPE: Myofibrillar protein extractability.

⁽²⁾WHC: water holding capability.

L*, a*, and b* represents the whiteness, red–green axis, and yellow–blue axis, respectively.

Figure 2. Textural properties of different parts from farmed common carp (Cyprinus carpio; n = 3). Different lowercase indicates the significant difference (p < 0.05).

Figure 3. Longitudinal sections of muscles from six portions of farmed common carp (Cyprinus carpio) viewed by light microscope. Scale bars: 100 μm; A: upper back, B: lower back, C: tail, D: jaw, E: chest, and F: belly.

Figure 4. Fat distribution patterns in muscles from six portions of farmed common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Scale bars: 100 μm; A: upper back, B: lower back, C: tail, D: jaw, E: chest, and F: belly.

Mráz, J.; Pickova, J. Differences Between Lipid Content and Composition of Different Parts of Fillets from Crossbred Farmed Carp (Cyprinus Carpio). Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 2009, 35, 615–623.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. 2012. In FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome, 2012; 29.

 Google Scholar