Effects of Different Farming Models on Muscle Quality, Intestinal Microbiota Diversity, and Liver Metabolism of Rice Field Eel (<i>Monopterus albus</i>)

As consumer demand for quality fish products continues to rise, quality has become a key factor in market competition. Ecological aquaculture research is exploring various farming methods to balance high-quality demand with environmental protection. This study compared three aquaculture models—cage...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yifan Zhao, Wenzong Zhou, Muyan Li, Yuning Zhang, Weiwei Lv, Weiwei Huang, Hang Yang, Quan Yuan, Mingyou Li
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2025-07-01
Series:Foods
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/14/13/2383
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850119166869110784
author Yifan Zhao
Wenzong Zhou
Muyan Li
Yuning Zhang
Weiwei Lv
Weiwei Huang
Hang Yang
Quan Yuan
Mingyou Li
author_facet Yifan Zhao
Wenzong Zhou
Muyan Li
Yuning Zhang
Weiwei Lv
Weiwei Huang
Hang Yang
Quan Yuan
Mingyou Li
author_sort Yifan Zhao
collection DOAJ
description As consumer demand for quality fish products continues to rise, quality has become a key factor in market competition. Ecological aquaculture research is exploring various farming methods to balance high-quality demand with environmental protection. This study compared three aquaculture models—cage culture (CG), recirculating aquaculture (RAG), and rice–fish co-culture (RG)—by analyzing muscle quality (AOAC, GC-MS), intestinal microbiota (16S rRNA), and liver metabolism (LC-MS) to assess their effects on <i>M. albus</i>. In terms of muscle quality, the RG group showed increased levels of EPA and DHA, reduced muscle moisture and crude lipid content, and enhanced crude protein accumulation. The crude protein content was significantly higher in the RAG group than in the CG group (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The RG group also had the highest levels of total, essential, and umami amino acids, followed by the RAG and CG groups. In terms of intestinal microbiota, the RG group had the highest microbial diversity and stability, with increased abundance of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes and decreased levels of Proteobacteria. Compared to the CG, the RAG group also showed increased microbial diversity and a reduction in pathogenic genera. Liver metabolomics analysis demonstrated that the RG group had significant advantages over the CG group in amino acid, lipid, and energy metabolism. The RAG group exhibited upregulation of glycerophospholipid metabolism and a decrease in oxidative stress marker levels. Overall, the RG group enhanced muscle quality and optimized intestinal and liver metabolism in <i>M. albus</i>.
format Article
id doaj-art-346ee0a69e684ba29b111bd8b2e1fe6e
institution OA Journals
issn 2304-8158
language English
publishDate 2025-07-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Foods
spelling doaj-art-346ee0a69e684ba29b111bd8b2e1fe6e2025-08-20T02:35:43ZengMDPI AGFoods2304-81582025-07-011413238310.3390/foods14132383Effects of Different Farming Models on Muscle Quality, Intestinal Microbiota Diversity, and Liver Metabolism of Rice Field Eel (<i>Monopterus albus</i>)Yifan Zhao0Wenzong Zhou1Muyan Li2Yuning Zhang3Weiwei Lv4Weiwei Huang5Hang Yang6Quan Yuan7Mingyou Li8Key Laboratory of Exploration and Utilization of Aquatic Genetic Resources by the Ministry of Education, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, ChinaEco-Environmental Protection Research Institute, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai 201403, ChinaKey Laboratory of Exploration and Utilization of Aquatic Genetic Resources by the Ministry of Education, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, ChinaEco-Environmental Protection Research Institute, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai 201403, ChinaEco-Environmental Protection Research Institute, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai 201403, ChinaEco-Environmental Protection Research Institute, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai 201403, ChinaEco-Environmental Protection Research Institute, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai 201403, ChinaEco-Environmental Protection Research Institute, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai 201403, ChinaKey Laboratory of Exploration and Utilization of Aquatic Genetic Resources by the Ministry of Education, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, ChinaAs consumer demand for quality fish products continues to rise, quality has become a key factor in market competition. Ecological aquaculture research is exploring various farming methods to balance high-quality demand with environmental protection. This study compared three aquaculture models—cage culture (CG), recirculating aquaculture (RAG), and rice–fish co-culture (RG)—by analyzing muscle quality (AOAC, GC-MS), intestinal microbiota (16S rRNA), and liver metabolism (LC-MS) to assess their effects on <i>M. albus</i>. In terms of muscle quality, the RG group showed increased levels of EPA and DHA, reduced muscle moisture and crude lipid content, and enhanced crude protein accumulation. The crude protein content was significantly higher in the RAG group than in the CG group (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The RG group also had the highest levels of total, essential, and umami amino acids, followed by the RAG and CG groups. In terms of intestinal microbiota, the RG group had the highest microbial diversity and stability, with increased abundance of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes and decreased levels of Proteobacteria. Compared to the CG, the RAG group also showed increased microbial diversity and a reduction in pathogenic genera. Liver metabolomics analysis demonstrated that the RG group had significant advantages over the CG group in amino acid, lipid, and energy metabolism. The RAG group exhibited upregulation of glycerophospholipid metabolism and a decrease in oxidative stress marker levels. Overall, the RG group enhanced muscle quality and optimized intestinal and liver metabolism in <i>M. albus</i>.https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/14/13/2383<i>Monopterus albus</i>farming modemuscle nutritionintestinal microbiotaliver metabolomics
spellingShingle Yifan Zhao
Wenzong Zhou
Muyan Li
Yuning Zhang
Weiwei Lv
Weiwei Huang
Hang Yang
Quan Yuan
Mingyou Li
Effects of Different Farming Models on Muscle Quality, Intestinal Microbiota Diversity, and Liver Metabolism of Rice Field Eel (<i>Monopterus albus</i>)
Foods
<i>Monopterus albus</i>
farming mode
muscle nutrition
intestinal microbiota
liver metabolomics
title Effects of Different Farming Models on Muscle Quality, Intestinal Microbiota Diversity, and Liver Metabolism of Rice Field Eel (<i>Monopterus albus</i>)
title_full Effects of Different Farming Models on Muscle Quality, Intestinal Microbiota Diversity, and Liver Metabolism of Rice Field Eel (<i>Monopterus albus</i>)
title_fullStr Effects of Different Farming Models on Muscle Quality, Intestinal Microbiota Diversity, and Liver Metabolism of Rice Field Eel (<i>Monopterus albus</i>)
title_full_unstemmed Effects of Different Farming Models on Muscle Quality, Intestinal Microbiota Diversity, and Liver Metabolism of Rice Field Eel (<i>Monopterus albus</i>)
title_short Effects of Different Farming Models on Muscle Quality, Intestinal Microbiota Diversity, and Liver Metabolism of Rice Field Eel (<i>Monopterus albus</i>)
title_sort effects of different farming models on muscle quality intestinal microbiota diversity and liver metabolism of rice field eel i monopterus albus i
topic <i>Monopterus albus</i>
farming mode
muscle nutrition
intestinal microbiota
liver metabolomics
url https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/14/13/2383
work_keys_str_mv AT yifanzhao effectsofdifferentfarmingmodelsonmusclequalityintestinalmicrobiotadiversityandlivermetabolismofricefieldeelimonopterusalbusi
AT wenzongzhou effectsofdifferentfarmingmodelsonmusclequalityintestinalmicrobiotadiversityandlivermetabolismofricefieldeelimonopterusalbusi
AT muyanli effectsofdifferentfarmingmodelsonmusclequalityintestinalmicrobiotadiversityandlivermetabolismofricefieldeelimonopterusalbusi
AT yuningzhang effectsofdifferentfarmingmodelsonmusclequalityintestinalmicrobiotadiversityandlivermetabolismofricefieldeelimonopterusalbusi
AT weiweilv effectsofdifferentfarmingmodelsonmusclequalityintestinalmicrobiotadiversityandlivermetabolismofricefieldeelimonopterusalbusi
AT weiweihuang effectsofdifferentfarmingmodelsonmusclequalityintestinalmicrobiotadiversityandlivermetabolismofricefieldeelimonopterusalbusi
AT hangyang effectsofdifferentfarmingmodelsonmusclequalityintestinalmicrobiotadiversityandlivermetabolismofricefieldeelimonopterusalbusi
AT quanyuan effectsofdifferentfarmingmodelsonmusclequalityintestinalmicrobiotadiversityandlivermetabolismofricefieldeelimonopterusalbusi
AT mingyouli effectsofdifferentfarmingmodelsonmusclequalityintestinalmicrobiotadiversityandlivermetabolismofricefieldeelimonopterusalbusi