No apples just a comparison of like matter.



Nutrient Content of Clupeid Forage Fishes

RICHARD J. STRANGE AND JANICE C. PELTON



Overall ranges of nutrients for all collections

were as follows: moisture, 69.7-84.9% (N = 52);

ash, 12.0-32.5% (N = 49); protein, 45.4-79.1%

(N = 55); fat, 3.3-31.5% (N = 39); and gross energy,

3.92-6.06 kcal.g • (N = 57). Results for ash,

protein, fat, and gross energy are and will be expressed

on a dry-weight basis unless otherwise

specified.



The clupeids examined during the present study

appear to be intermediate in nutritional value in

comparison with other forage fishes. Mean fat percentage

of Dorosoma spp. (24.2%) exceeded that

ofLepomis spp. (15.2%) and fathead minnows Pimephales

promelas (19.1%), but was less than that

of mosquitofish Gambusia affinis (25.8%) and

golden shiners Notemigonus crysoleucas (34.8%)

(Davis and Boyd 1978). Bluegills Lepomis macrochirus

had lower caloric contents (1.06 kcal-g-•

on a wet-weight basis) than gizzard and threadfin

shad (1.17 kcal-g • on a wet-weight basis) (Minton

and McLean 1982); preliminary data collected

for the present study also showed Lepomis spp. to

he lower in caloric content than the clupeids. The

primary reason for the lower energy content of

Lepomis spp. is probably a higher ash content,

rather than a lower fat content. Mean ash content

of Lepomis spp. was 23.8%; the mean for Dorosoma

spp. was 16.1% (Davis and Boyd 1978).

Scales ofLepomis spp. are larger and thicker than

those of Dorosoma spp., and their skeletal structure

may be more substantial. Scales are about 30-

35% ash on a dry-weight basis (Lagler et al. 1977).