0
X Simposio Internacional de Nutrición Acuícola
Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
November 9, 2010 – Session 3
Meeting the Chal...
Aquaculture: largest consumer of fishmeal
 In 2006, aquafeeds used 3.7 million MT of fishmeal, 68.2% of the
estimated glo...
Fishmeal use is reducing in shrimp feeds
 Shrimp are the largest consumer of fishmeal within the
aquaculture industry, ah...
Drivers for fishmeal reduction
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Jan-2005 Jan-2006 Jan-2007 Jan-2008 J...
Farmers are raising a less nutrient-
dependent shrimp species
Production of L. vannamei increased 16x in 8 years (2000 vs....
About aquaculture at LABOMAR, Brazil
 50-year old marine
sciences institution
located in NE Brazil
 Part of the Federal
...
Rearing system: shrimp
Clear water
Round tanks of 500-L volume
0.57 m2 bottom area
12-h sand filtering
Green water
Round t...
Shrimp rearing: standard protocol
1 2 3
4 5 6
1. PL10 rearing: 2 PLs/L – 30 -40 days
2. Juvenile stocking (2-4 g shrimp)
...
Sources of Rendered Animal Protein Have Low
Stimulatory Power for L. vannamei
Attractant*
CON
MBM
SM
FMPO
FMBO
BM
FO
FS
Ch...
Replacing Fishmeal by Ingredients with Low Feeding
Stimulation
Natural and synthetic feeding effectors
Meat meal
Soybean m...
Feeding Effectors not a Feed Perfume
Photo credit: Alberto Nunes
(1) 80%-crude protein (CP) vegetable dried biomass (VDB80...
Aminoacid Profile of Commercial Feeds
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Required*
ARG...
Methionine Crucial to Growth Performance
2.75 (0.49)2.56 (0.37)2.80 (0.41)2.75 (0.63)FCR
342.9ab (71.5)252.2a (50.0)286.2a...
Intact methionine affects performance
Ingredient (%) 80 A 70 A 60 A
Soybean meal, 46% 32.0 33.3 30.3
Wheat flour 25.0 25.0...
AA Profile Significantly Impacts
Growth and FCR
72-day rearing trial with L. vannamei in indoor
tanks (clear water) at LAB...
 Fifty 500 L clear water
tanks: 10 replicate tanks
per diet
 40 shrimp/tank: 70
animals/m2
 Started with juveniles of
2...
Ingredient (g/kg, as is) NV_B NV50_C+ NV50_C- NV100_C+ NV100_C-
Soybean meal 350.0 457.6 450.0 487.0 485.2
Wheat flour 235...
No statistical differences in shrimp final survival, yield and FCR among
harvested shrimp fed the different experimental d...
A higher body weight was observed when shrimp were fed the basal diet with
150 g/kg of fish meal (NV_B) or when diets were...
On day 72, a higher weekly growth rate was found for shrimp fed either the
basal diet, NV_B or diets NV50_C+ and NOV100_C+...
The reduction of fishmeal in experimental diets had no detrimental effect
over shrimp feed intake. Indication of a higher ...
The addition of poultry by-product meal, squid meal
and HMTBa may have helped prevent reductions in
palatability typically...
 Fifty 500 L clear water
tanks: 6-7 replicate tanks
per diet
 40 shrimp/tank: 70
animals/m2
 Started with juveniles of
...
Experimental Diets
Ingredient
Experimental Diets/Composition (g/kg, as is)
2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 2015 2020 2025
2.0% Fi...
Nutritional Composition
2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 2015 2020 2025
2.0% Fish OIL 1.0% Fish OIL
Proximate Compostion (g/kg, dr...
Overall performance
At 2% fish oil, shrimp growth rates were reduced only when diets had not
fishmeal. At 1% fish oil, gro...
Final shrimp body weight
The lowest possible combinations of dietary inclusion levels of fish meal (FM)
and fish oil (FO) ...
Feed intake
Feed intake was consistent among experimental diets, except when
fishmeal was removed in the 1% fish oil diet
FCR
At 1% fish oil, FCR significantly increased, starting at 5% fishmeal and below
Fishmeal, Anchovy
67.65%
Protein7.61%
Lipid
24.74%
Other
Krill meal
60.10%
Protein25.00%
Lipid
14.90%
Other
4.07%
1.57%
3....
Objectives
1. To evaluate the growth
performance of juveniles of
L. vannamei when fed diets
containing Krill meal and
Kril...
Ingredients
Diet composition (g/kg as is)
CLT KM10 KM50 KM110
Fish meal, Anchovy 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0
Fish meal, by-catch ...
Parameter Water
Experimental Diets
CLT KM10 KM50 KM110 Mean ± SD
Initial
Weight (g)
Clear 2.8 ± 0.7 2.9 ± 0.7 2.8 ± 0.6 3....
BFT creates new perspectives in the
way shrimp feeds are formulated
Bioflocs can spare protein and the dependence on fishm...
Going heterotrophic under lab conditions
Dried mollasses
Poultry feed
Application in water
Phytoplankton bloom
Bioflocs fo...
INGREDIENTS
Poultry feed, 15.7% CP
Shrimp feed, 35% CP
Molasses, dried
Synthetic binder
NUTRIENT LEVELS
C:N Ratio
Fat
Fibe...
50 – INT 3.99 ± 0.35ac 21.22 ± 1.10a 1.68 ± 0.12a 92.8 ± 7.6 771 ± 116
75 – INT 3.28 ± 0.22bc 18.57 ± 1.26c 1.49 ± 0.11ab ...
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
-2 3 6 9 10 12 16 19 24 27 30 34 38 46 48 52 55 59 62 67 70
Volume (mL/L)
Days of Rearin...
Why shrimp feeds still rely on fishmeal?
(1) ECONOMICS: use remains economically
competitive at strategic inclusion levels...
CONCLUSIONS
1. On methionine supplementation:
Supplementation of crystalline amino acids provides a
viable cost effective ...
Acknowledgements
Financial support
Novus International Inc. (USA)
EMBRAPA – Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária
(Brazil)
Co-w...
X Sina Mexico Nov 2010   Alberto Nunes Final
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

X Sina Mexico Nov 2010 Alberto Nunes Final

1,036

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,036
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
35
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "X Sina Mexico Nov 2010 Alberto Nunes Final"

  1. 1. X Simposio Internacional de Nutrición Acuícola Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico November 9, 2010 – Session 3 Meeting the Challenge of no Fishmeal in Practical Diets for Litopenaeus vannamei: Case Studies from LABOMAR, Brazil Alberto J.P. Nunes Associate Professor
  2. 2. Aquaculture: largest consumer of fishmeal  In 2006, aquafeeds used 3.7 million MT of fishmeal, 68.2% of the estimated global production¶ 23,851 60,014 15,072 45,557 2006 2020E Production of finfish and crustaceans* Total fed production *MT x 1,000. Excludes filter-feeding fish ¶ Source: Tacon and Metian, 2008 In 10 years, fed-raised finfish and crustaceans will account for ¾ of world production (63%) (76%) MT x 1,000
  3. 3. Fishmeal use is reducing in shrimp feeds  Shrimp are the largest consumer of fishmeal within the aquaculture industry, ahead of marine fish and salmon 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 Fish IN : Fish OUT Ratio Farm-raised marine shrimp production Pelagic forage fish equivalent Projections FIFOMT x 1,000 Over the past 15 years, fishmeal inclusion in shrimp feeds reduced from 28% (1995) to 12% (2010).FIFO more efficient than salmon, trout, eel and marine fish¶ . 1.9 0.3 ¶Source:TaconandMetian,2008
  4. 4. Drivers for fishmeal reduction 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Jan-2005 Jan-2006 Jan-2007 Jan-2008 Jan-2009 Jan-2010 Year Soybean meal Fishmeal CIFPrice(USD/MT) Five-year market price (2005-2010) for fishmeal and soybean meal. Source: Oil World. Fishmeal (64/65% CP, CIF Hamburg). Soybean meal (pellets 44/45% CP Argentina, CIF Rotterdam). (1) PRODUCTION capture fisheries production remains stagnant compared to an 8.8% annual growth rate in aquaculture output (2) PRICES fishmeal prices have risen significantly compared to other agricultural commodity protein ingredients (3) SUSTAINABILITY as shrimp farming moves into more intensive systems and production rises, there is a growing demand for formulated diets dependent on static supplies of fish meal
  5. 5. Farmers are raising a less nutrient- dependent shrimp species Production of L. vannamei increased 16x in 8 years (2000 vs. 2008) compared to 14% for the tiger shrimp 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Harvest (MT x 1,000) Grand Total Litopenaeus vannamei Penaeus monodon Other species Source: FAO (2010) 2,259 MT 66% 722 MT 21% 145 MT 13% 631 MT 56% 1,135 MT 3,399 MT
  6. 6. About aquaculture at LABOMAR, Brazil  50-year old marine sciences institution located in NE Brazil  Part of the Federal University of the State of Ceará  Owns 5-ha facility where applied research on reproduction, nutrition, disease and genetics of marine fish and crustaceans is carried out Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis Cobia, Rachycentron canadum Fat and common snook, Centropomus parallelus and C. undecimalis OUTDOOR SYSTEM (Marine Finfish)
  7. 7. Rearing system: shrimp Clear water Round tanks of 500-L volume 0.57 m2 bottom area 12-h sand filtering Green water Round tanks of 1.000-L volume 1.02 m2 bottom area 25% weekly water exchange CLEAR WATER GREEN WATER
  8. 8. Shrimp rearing: standard protocol 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. PL10 rearing: 2 PLs/L – 30 -40 days 2. Juvenile stocking (2-4 g shrimp)  Green water: 40 – 70 shrimp/m2  Clear water: 70 - 100 shrimp/m2 4. Fed twice a day on a consumption basis 5. Meals calculated individually 6. Shrimp samples every 3.5 weeks 7. Harvest after 10 weeks (10 – 20 g shrimp)
  9. 9. Sources of Rendered Animal Protein Have Low Stimulatory Power for L. vannamei Attractant* CON MBM SM FMPO FMBO BM FO FS Chi-square P +choices (%)* 2.9g 54.5af 59.1ad 75.6a 65.9ac 45.7abcd 25.7b 58.5ae <0.001 % rejection 100.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 44.4 8.3 --- *Values in the column which do not share a same superscript are statistically different between them by the z-test (P<0.05); *control (CON) without SEM; meat and bone meal (MBM); squid meal (SM); fishmeal–Peruvian origin (FMPO); fishmeal–Brazilian origin (FMBO); blood meal (BM); fish oil (FO); fish solubles (FS) Source:Nunesetal2006.Aquaculture,260:244-254. Y-maze system to evaluate feeding effectors in shrimp
  10. 10. Replacing Fishmeal by Ingredients with Low Feeding Stimulation Natural and synthetic feeding effectors Meat meal Soybean mealFish meal ~ + +
  11. 11. Feeding Effectors not a Feed Perfume Photo credit: Alberto Nunes (1) 80%-crude protein (CP) vegetable dried biomass (VDB80); (2) 68%-CP vegetable dried biomass + glutamate + betaine (VDB68); (3) complex of amino acids (alanine, valine, glycine, proline, serine, histidine, glutamic acid, tyrosine and betaine) with enzymatically digested bivalve mollusk (CAA); (4) condensed fish soluble protein (CFSP); (5) squid liver meal (SLM); (6) betaine (Bet); (7) dried fish solubles - low biogenic amines (DFSLB); (8) dried fish solubles - high biogenic amines (DFSHB); (9) whole squid protein hydrolysate (WSPH); **Soybean meal = experimental control Evidence that AA pools are better attractants than isolated ones 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 CON VDB80 VDB68 CAA CFSP SLM Bet DFSLH DFSHH WSPH High content of water-soluble AA. Rich in water soluble substances with boosted feeding stimuli Whole squid is an effective attractant. Protein hydrolysis process can promote even better responses Supplementation of vegetable sources with certain amino acids (glutamate and betaine) may prove useless to stimulate feeding responses % rejection % +choices
  12. 12. Aminoacid Profile of Commercial Feeds 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Mean Minimum Maximum Required* ARG HIS ISO LEU LYS MET CYS M+C PHE TYR P+T THR TRY VAL +18% +1% +11% +37% +9% -33% -26% +16% 0% +12% +17% +6% Analyzed feeds met marine shrimp EAA requirements, but METHIONINE was the most limiting EAA in all diets How important is MET to shrimp biological performance? g of EAA/100 g of crude protein* *Source: Lemos and Nunes (2008). Aquaculture Nutrition 2008 14; 181–191
  13. 13. Methionine Crucial to Growth Performance 2.75 (0.49)2.56 (0.37)2.80 (0.41)2.75 (0.63)FCR 342.9ab (71.5)252.2a (50.0)286.2a (68.0)Biomass gain (g) 915.4c (32.7)879.7c (62.0)691.9b (55.9)755.9a (23.6)Feed cons. (g) 0.73a (0.14)0.56a (0.10)0.63a (0.13)Growth (g/week) 0.60ab (0.13)0.61ab (0.10)0.44a (0.09)0.50a (0.12)Yield (Kg/m2) 93.8a (2.18)81.9b (9.26)91.5a (5.10)92.7a (1.94)Survival (%) T6T4T3 Performance of L. vannamei in clear water after 56 days of rearing fed commercial diets. Temp. 29.5 C; sal. 33.4 ‰; stocking density. 114 ind./m2; initial weight 3.28 (± 0.31). Source: Lemos and Nunes (2008). Aquaculture Nutrition 2008 14; 181–191. T5 0.91b (0.04) 349.1ab (58.7) 2.26 (0.44) 444.1b (81.3) 977.9d (31.6) 0.98b (0.14) 0.78b (0.14) 90.8a (3.32) T8 2.05 (0.27) 439.2b (64.8) 887.9c (23.7) 0.97b (0.13) 0.77b (0.11) 91.2a (2.31) T7Parameters 371 (1.2) 1.38 0.51% Crude Protein Met. (g/100 CP) Met (%, dw) • High correlation between shrimp growth rate and methionine levels (R2 = 0.73) • Higher growth achieved when feed showed: 1. Lower number of EAA below recommended levels 2. Methionine: 1.70 -1.75 g/100 g of crude protein 3. Lysine: > 6.0 g/100 g of crude protein 4. Methionine+cystine: > 2.68 g/100 g of crude protein 348 (0.9) 1.47 0.51% 361 (0.4) 1.91 0.69% 350 (1.2) 1.46 0.51% 356 (0.1) 1.75 0.62% 359 (1.3) 1.73 062%
  14. 14. Intact methionine affects performance Ingredient (%) 80 A 70 A 60 A Soybean meal, 46% 32.0 33.3 30.3 Wheat flour 25.0 25.0 25.0 Fishmeal, Anchovy 13.0 7.3 0.0 Fishmeal, by-catch 10.0 10.0 5.1 Corn gluten meal 5.0 5.0 10.4 Rice, Broken 3.7 1.8 1.8 Dicalcium Phosphate 3.6 3.2 2.3 Fish oil 2.8 2.3 0.4 Lecithin, Fluid 1.7 1.9 2.2 Salt 1.0 1.0 1.0 Vitamin-Mineral Pmx 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pegabind (Pellet Binder) 0.5 0.5 0.5 Magnesium Sulfate 0.16 0.00 0.00 Potassium Chloride 0.14 0.00 0.00 Cholesterol 0.12 0.11 0.11 Stay C 0.03 0.03 0.03 Commercial attractant 0.2 0.3 0.4 Meat and bone meal 0.0 7.2 19.6 Formula cost (US$/MT) 658 593 505 Lower aminoacid levels Ingredient (%) 80 A 70 A 60 A Crude Protein 35.50 35.50 35.50 Crude Fat 8.00 8.50 8.50 Crude Fiber 1.86 1.96 1.84 Ash 11.94 12.57 13.27 Lysine 1.85 1.72 1.41 Met+Cys 1.09 1.01 0.93 Methionine 0.67 0.59 0.50 -11.0% -33.3%Cost savings in formulation
  15. 15. AA Profile Significantly Impacts Growth and FCR 72-day rearing trial with L. vannamei in indoor tanks (clear water) at LABOMAR, Brazil. Survival % 91.2 ± 4.8 93.0 ± 3.8 91.6 ± 1.5 NS Yield (g/m2) 884 ± 74.9 1,094 ± 192.0 1,085 ± 78.0 NS Growth (g/wk) 0.98 ± 0.06 a 1.17 ± 0.13 a 1.19 ± 0.10 b < 0.05 Weight In. (g) 4.14 ± 0.31 3.93 ± 0.16 4.09 ± 0.46 NS Feeds 60A 70A 80A ANOVA P Weight Fn. (g) 14.3 ± 0.64 a 16.0 ± 1.39 ab 16.3 ± 1.12 b < 0.05 FCR 2.75 ± 0.17 b 2.30 ± 0.24 a 2.47 ± 0.07 a < 0.05 Initial Stocking Density: 57 shrimp/tank or 100 shrimp/m2 Feeds 60A 70A 80A ANOVA P
  16. 16.  Fifty 500 L clear water tanks: 10 replicate tanks per diet  40 shrimp/tank: 70 animals/m2  Started with juveniles of 2.22 ± 0.19 g (n = 50) in wet body weight  Two harvests: 72 days and 96 days (stress event)  Five diets prepared with laboratory equipment Experimental Design *84% 2-hydroxy-4-(methylthio)butanoic acid (HMTBa) NV_B NV50_C+ NV50_C- NV100_C+ NV100_C- MERA™ Met Ca* NV_B: basal diet with 150 g/kg of Anchovy fishmeal (FML) NV50_C+: positive control diet with 50 g/kg of FML + 1g/kg MERA™ Met Ca NV50_C-: negative control diet with 50 g/kg of FML and no MERA™ Met Ca NV100_C+: positive control diet without FML + 2 g/kg MERA™ Met Ca NV100_C-: negative control diet without FML and no MERA™ Met Ca
  17. 17. Ingredient (g/kg, as is) NV_B NV50_C+ NV50_C- NV100_C+ NV100_C- Soybean meal 350.0 457.6 450.0 487.0 485.2 Wheat flour 235.6 217.0 221.7 210.0 210.0 Fish meal, Anchovy 150.0 75.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 Poultry by-product meal 60.0 60.0 65.7 60.0 60.0 Rice, broken 50.0 21.9 21.8 0.0 0.0 Soy protein concentrate 43.1 30.0 30.0 93.3 96.4 Squid meal, whole 0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Fish oil 15.0 30.0 30.0 44.0 44.0 Soybean oil 19.4 8.5 7.9 0.0 0.0 MERA™ Met Ca1 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 L-lysine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 Other micro ingredients 76.8 79.8 77.8 83.3 84.2 Proximate Composition (g/kg, dry matter basis) Moisture 92.6 95.7 91.0 88.1 92.9 Crude protein 392.2 383.5 391.8 393.2 406.6 Lipids 70.5 75.9 70.7 78.0 60.7 Total fiber 22.7 26.6 28.3 27.1 31.7 Ash 98.7 97.6 97.9 95.5 88.4 Amino Acids (g/kg, dry matter basis) HMTBa 0.0 0.65 0.0 1.14 0.0 Methionine 6.0 5.4 5.2 4.5 4.8 Cystine 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.7 Methionine + cystine 11.4 10.7 10.6 10.1 10.5 Lysine 19.7 20.4 18.8 19.4 22.4 Formulation Cost2 -- 11.7% 12.5% 22.2% 23.2% 184%2-hydroxy-4-(methylthio)butanoicacid(HMTBa); 2%reductioninformulacostincomparisontothecontroldietNV_B
  18. 18. No statistical differences in shrimp final survival, yield and FCR among harvested shrimp fed the different experimental diets Overall Performance % Survival 93.8 ± 6.7 91.5 ± 5.3 92.3 ± 4.9 91.5 ± 3.6 92.5 ± 5.3 92.3 ± 5.1 Diet NV_B NV50_C+ NV50_C- NV100_C+ NV100_C- Mean Yield (g/m2) 849 ± 72 841 ± 119 768 ± 81 776 ± 65 806 ± 64 808 ± 86 FCR 2.13 ± 0.14 2.27 ± 0.23 2.13 ± 0.20 2.21 ± 0.17 2.11 ± 0.17 2.17 ± 0.19 78.3 ± 12.1 82.5 ± 7.1 82.0 ± 9.6 82.3 ± 5.3 82.0 ± 4.0 81.4 ± 8.0 526 ± 72 563 ± 88 519 ± 61 534 ± 31 552 ± 51 539 ± 70 3.26 ± 0.52 3.23 ± 0.33 3.11 ± 0.45 3.09 ± 0.22 2.94 ± 0.20 3.12 ± 0.37 NV_B NV50_C+ NV50_C- NV100_C+ NV100_C- Mean 72days96days
  19. 19. A higher body weight was observed when shrimp were fed the basal diet with 150 g/kg of fish meal (NV_B) or when diets were supplemented with HMTBa Final shrimp body weight
  20. 20. On day 72, a higher weekly growth rate was found for shrimp fed either the basal diet, NV_B or diets NV50_C+ and NOV100_C+. Weekly shrimp growth
  21. 21. The reduction of fishmeal in experimental diets had no detrimental effect over shrimp feed intake. Indication of a higher feed intake in diets with MERA™ MetCa as seen for NV50_C+. Feed intake
  22. 22. The addition of poultry by-product meal, squid meal and HMTBa may have helped prevent reductions in palatability typically associated with reductions in fish meal content. Feed attractability
  23. 23.  Fifty 500 L clear water tanks: 6-7 replicate tanks per diet  40 shrimp/tank: 70 animals/m2  Started with juveniles of 2.02 ± 0.51 g (n = 500) in wet body weight  Shrimp reared for 72 days  Eight diets prepared with laboratory equipment Fishmeal forecast study Anchovy fishmealSoy protein concentrate  Two sets of diets: (1) 2% fish oil (2) 1% FO  Each set varied Anchovy fishmeal, SPC and SBO inclusion Year 2010: 12% fishmeal (0% replacement) Year 2015: 8.5% fishmeal (30% replacement) Year 2020: 5.0% fishmeal (60% replacement) Year 2025: NO fishmeal (100% replacement)
  24. 24. Experimental Diets Ingredient Experimental Diets/Composition (g/kg, as is) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 2015 2020 2025 2.0% Fish OIL 1.0% Fish OIL Fish meal, Anchovy 120.0 85.0 50.0 0.0 120.0 85.0 50.0 0.0 Soy protein concentrate 0.0 38.5 77.5 133.4 0.0 38.4 77.5 133.2 Broken rice 41.5 35.1 25.8 11.9 41.5 35.4 25.9 12.7 Soybean oil 10.5 13.3 18.0 25.1 20.4 23.0 27.9 34.5 Fish oil 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 L-lysine 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 DL-methionine 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.4 Soybean meal 330.0 330.0 330.0 330.0 330.0 330.0 330.0 330.0 Wheat flour 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 Poultry by-product meal 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 Vitamin-mineral premix 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Soybean lecithin 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Bicalcium phosphate 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 Common salt 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Potassium chloride 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Synthetic binder 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Magnesium sulfate 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.8 Vitamin C 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Fixed Variable
  25. 25. Nutritional Composition 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 2015 2020 2025 2.0% Fish OIL 1.0% Fish OIL Proximate Compostion (g/kg, dry matter basis) Crude protein 388.1 384.1 393.9 390.8 393.5 384.9 385.9 388.4 Crude fat 99.8 89.5 94.8 97.0 93.0 89.3 93.7 97.8 Crude fiber 14.7 17.3 17.0 19.2 17.9 15.5 13.4 17.4 Ash 104.7 97.6 96.1 88.9 105.6 97.1 94.6 91.3 Calcium 15.9 15.1 14.2 13.0 15.9 15.1 14.2 13.0 Gross energy (MJ/kg) 19.7 19.6 19.9 20.1 19.6 19.8 19.9 20.1 Essential amino acids (g/kg, dry matter basis) Lysine 23.6 24.3 24.3 25.0 23.6 24.1 24.9 25.2 Methionine 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.7 7.2 7.4 7.8 7.9 Cystine 4.1 4.9 4.3 5.1 5.0 5.2 4.3 4.3 Methionine + cystine 11.7 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.2 12.6 101.5 105.7 Essential Fatty Acid (g/kg, dried matter basis) Linoleic (18:2 n-6) 31.9 30.0 33.1 36.7 36.1 35.3 38.2 42.4 Arachidonic (20:4 n-6) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 Total n-6 PUFA 32.4 30.4 33.4 37.0 36.2 35.4 38.4 42.5 Linolenic (18:3 n-3) 5.2 4.4 4.9 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.7 5.0 Eicosatrienoic (20:3 n-3) 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 Eicosapentaenoic (20:5 n-3) 7.7 5.3 4.2 3.1 1.9 1.8 2.6 1.6 Docosahexaenoic (22:6 n-3) 5.8 4.3 3.5 2.9 1.7 1.6 2.2 2.1 Total n-3 PUFA 19.2 14.3 12.9 11.5 8.8 8.5 9.7 8.9 Total PUFA2 51.6 44.7 46.3 48.5 45.0 43.9 48.1 51.4 n-3/n-6 0.59 0.47 0.39 0.31 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.21
  26. 26. Overall performance At 2% fish oil, shrimp growth rates were reduced only when diets had not fishmeal. At 1% fish oil, growth rates dropped at 5% fishmeal inclusion. Variable FM (%) Year Fish Oil Level 2.0% 1.0% Survival (%) 12.0 2010 91.3 ± 2.2 94.0 ± 2.2 8.5 2015 90.0 ± 5.0 94.2 ± 3.0 5.0 2020 93.3 ± 4.1 89.6 ± 5.1 0.0 2025 94.6 ± 4.3 91.3 ± 5.4 Growth Rate (g/week) 12.0 2010 0.69 ± 0.06 A 0.74 ± 0.07 A 8.5 2015 0.65 ± 0.04 AB 0.70 ± 0.09 A 5.0 2020 0.62 ± 0.09 AB 0.60 ± 0.05 B 0.0 2025 0.58 ± 0.07 B 0.53 ± 0.06 B Yield (g/m²) 12.0 2010 547.5 ± 29.2 Aa 592.7 ± 47.1 Aa 8.5 2015 540.0 ± 13.0 Aa 597.4 ± 46.2 Ab 5.0 2020 538.5 ± 47.5 Aa 505.5 ± 52.5 Ba 0.0 2025 524.5 ± 63.0 Aa 477.7 ± 59.1 Ba
  27. 27. Final shrimp body weight The lowest possible combinations of dietary inclusion levels of fish meal (FM) and fish oil (FO) level were 5%FM-2%FO (diet 2020) and 8.5%FM-1% FO (diet 2015).
  28. 28. Feed intake Feed intake was consistent among experimental diets, except when fishmeal was removed in the 1% fish oil diet
  29. 29. FCR At 1% fish oil, FCR significantly increased, starting at 5% fishmeal and below
  30. 30. Fishmeal, Anchovy 67.65% Protein7.61% Lipid 24.74% Other Krill meal 60.10% Protein25.00% Lipid 14.90% Other 4.07% 1.57% 3.04% 5.07% 5.01% 1.92% 2.76% 2.55% 3.51% EAA (as is) ARG HIS ISO LEU LYS MET PHE THR VAL 6.11% 2.61% 3.85% 6.61% 7.22% 2.66% 3.81% 3.19% 3.99% EAA (as is) ARG HIS ISO LEU LYS MET PHE THR VAL 4.32% TL 1.80% TL EFA (% of total lipid) ƩHUFA n-3 ƩHUFA n-6 22.11% TL 4.99% TL EFA (% of total lipid) ƩHUFA n-3 ƩHUFA n-6 versus > 40% phospholipid
  31. 31. Objectives 1. To evaluate the growth performance of juveniles of L. vannamei when fed diets containing Krill meal and Krill oil under partial or full replacement of fishmeal, fish oil, soy lecithin and cholesterol 2. To determine optimum inclusion levels of Krill meal in diets for the white shrimp in regards its growth and economical performance Major protein and lipid ingredients used in experimental diets for growth trials with L. vannamei
  32. 32. Ingredients Diet composition (g/kg as is) CLT KM10 KM50 KM110 Fish meal, Anchovy 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Fish meal, by-catch 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 Broken rice 130.4 115.6 108.0 113.5 Soybean meal 300.0 340.2 338.6 349.4 Meat and bone meal 23.1 55.0 100.0 99.5 Wheat flour 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 Fish oil 20.0 15.2 17.7 0.1 Soybean lecithin 15.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 Krill meal 0.0 10.0 50.0 115.0 Cholesterol 1.5 1.5 0.8 0.0 Others* 322.5 322.5 322.5 322.5 USD/MT** / % Savings 662.8 8.0% 12.8% 8.7% Proximate composition (g/kg dried matter basis) Crude protein 325.5 336.0 327.3 338.6 Total lipids 103.8 103.5 107.5 107.5 Ash 99.5 98.3 99.5 96.7 Crude fiber 1.65 1.49 1.64 2.22 Gross energy (kJ/g) 17.5 17.5 16.9 16.8 Moisture (% as fed) 11.1 10.7 10.2 8.8 *Others included: 1.5 g/kg magnesium sulfate, 4.0 g/kg potassium chloride, 5.0 g/kg synthetic binder, 10.0 g/kg common salt, 10.0 g/kg vitamin-mineral premix, 12.0 g/kg bicalcium phosphate, 30.0 g/kg of corn gluten meal and 250.0 g/kg wheat flour. **FOB prices (Fortaleza, Brazil, Dec. 2007). Formula savings (USD/MT) compared to the CLT (basal) diet.
  33. 33. Parameter Water Experimental Diets CLT KM10 KM50 KM110 Mean ± SD Initial Weight (g) Clear 2.8 ± 0.7 2.9 ± 0.7 2.8 ± 0.6 3.0 ± 0.8 2.9 ± 0.7 Green 3.5 ± 0.8 3.5 ± 0.7 3.5 ± 0.7 3.4 ± 0.8 3.5 ± 0.8 Final Weight (g) Clear 13.1 ± 2.2 13.3 ± 1.9 12.9 ± 1.8 13.3 ± 2.1 13.2 ± 2.0 Green 14.7 ± 2.1 13.9 ± 2.1 14.0 ± 2.5 14.2 ± 2.4 14.2 ± 2.3 Growth (g/week) Clear 0.98 ± 0.02 1.01 ± 0.07 0.98 ± 0.07 1.01 ± 0.08 1.0 ± 0.05 Green 1.06 ± 0.08 1.01 ± 0.08 1.02 ± 0.14 1.05 ± 0.07 1.04 ± 0.09 Survival (%) Clear 83.9 ± 10.1 80.0 ± 6.2 81.4 ± 6.9 80.7 ± 6.0 81.4 ± 7.1 Green 91.8 ± 4.6 94.4 ± 1.9 91.5 ± 3.6 85.9 ± 8.7 91.3 ± 5.7 Yield (kg/m2) Clear 0.80 ± 0.13 0.77 ± 0.14 0.77 ± 0.13 0.78 ± 0.04 0.78 ± 0.12 Green 0.58 ± 0.05 0.58 ± 0.04 0.56 ± 0.09 0.53 ± 0.09 0.57 ± 0.07 AFI* (kg/m2) Clear 1.58 ± 0.18 1.65 ± 0.21 1.66 ± 0.22 1.76 ± 0.14 0.95 ± 0.10 Green 1.28 ± 0.23 1.12 ± 0.24 1.17 ± 0.12 1.25 ± 0.14 1.23 ± 0.15 FCR* Clear 1.99 ± 0.25 2.18 ± 0.37 2.18 ± 0.33 2.27 ± 0.18 2.16 ± 0.28 Green 2.47 ± 0.26 1.96 ± 0.10 2.13 ± 0.18 2.44 ± 0.54 2.15 ± 0.34 *AFI, apparent feed intake per area of culture (kg/m2); FCR, food conversion ratio. Growth response (mean ± standard deviation) of L. vannamei juveniles fed diets containing Krill meal for 72 days in 500-L indoor (clear water) and 1,000-L outdoor (green water) tanks. Source: Nunes et al. (2010). Aquaculture Nutrition.
  34. 34. BFT creates new perspectives in the way shrimp feeds are formulated Bioflocs can spare protein and the dependence on fishmeal in shrimp diets Biofloc system in a commercial shrimp farm in NE Brazil
  35. 35. Going heterotrophic under lab conditions Dried mollasses Poultry feed Application in water Phytoplankton bloom Bioflocs formation Bacterial flocs C:N ratio of 20:1 Innoculation
  36. 36. INGREDIENTS Poultry feed, 15.7% CP Shrimp feed, 35% CP Molasses, dried Synthetic binder NUTRIENT LEVELS C:N Ratio Fat Fiber Protein Moisture INCLUSION 54.03% 40.73% 5.00% 0.24% 12.30 4.25% 4.38% 23.52% 7.99% Experimental diets Weighing feed and molasses 36.9% CP23.5% CP Low protein diet
  37. 37. 50 – INT 3.99 ± 0.35ac 21.22 ± 1.10a 1.68 ± 0.12a 92.8 ± 7.6 771 ± 116 75 – INT 3.28 ± 0.22bc 18.57 ± 1.26c 1.49 ± 0.11ab 72.7 ± 10.7 751 ± 158 100 – INT 3.58 ± 0.14abc 17.27 ± 1.29c 1.33 ± 0.12b 67.2 ± 21.7 766 ± 308 50 – BFT 3.70 ± 0.36ab 20.22 ± 0.43b 1.61 ± 0.04ac 81.6 ± 15.6 629 ± 167 75 – BFT 3.26 ± 0.75c 17.99 ± 1.67c 1.33 ± 0.05bc 85.1 ± 10.4 883 ± 152 100 – BFT 3.31 ± 0.25bc 16.95 ± 0.35c 1.48 ± 0.16b 80.0 ± 15.7 1,002 ± 225 ANOVA < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 ns ns In. WGT (g) Fn. WGT (g) Grams/wk Survival (%) Yield (g/m2 )Shrimp/m2 Under floc conditions, shrimp can grow well with low protein diets Growth of P. vannamei under an autotrophic versus heterotrophic system over 72 days of culture Data: Fonseca (unpublished) Biofloc system allowed reducing feed protein content without any detriment to shrimp growth
  38. 38. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 -2 3 6 9 10 12 16 19 24 27 30 34 38 46 48 52 55 59 62 67 70 Volume (mL/L) Days of Rearing 100-BFT 75-BFT 50-BFT 75-INT 50-INT 100-INT Biofloc production higher at BFT than conventional intensive system, but reduced at low stocking density
  39. 39. Why shrimp feeds still rely on fishmeal? (1) ECONOMICS: use remains economically competitive at strategic inclusion levels, for specialty diets (starters, anti- stress/transition, premium) and certain markets (2) CONVENIENCE: few ingredients available capable of replacing the single value of fishmeal. It contains a highly attractive package from the nutrition standpoint  Source of multiple essential nutrients (protein, AA, fatty acids, cholesterol, phospholipids)  Highly digestible, few anti-nutritional factors, feeding effectors, unidentified growth factors (3) MARKET PERCEPTION: feeds with high levels of fishmeal are still perceived as high performers
  40. 40. CONCLUSIONS 1. On methionine supplementation: Supplementation of crystalline amino acids provides a viable cost effective alternative for innovative nutritional strategies focusing on maintaining ideal protein ratios in the diet while providing increased flexibility in ingredient selection. 2. On fishmeal reduction: Effective fishmeal reduction in shrimp diets is dependent on methionine supplementation and an adequate supply of fish oil or another source of n-3 HUFA. Reduction beyond 5% fishmeal inclusion with 1% fish oil caused detriment to shrimp performance.
  41. 41. Acknowledgements Financial support Novus International Inc. (USA) EMBRAPA – Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Brazil) Co-workers Dr. Marcelo Sá, Hassan Sabry-Neto, students and staff at LABOMAR
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×