Kalyan Call Girl 98350*37198 Call Girls in Escort service book now
X Sina Mexico Nov 2010 Alberto Nunes Final
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Replacing Fishmeal by Ingredients with Low Feeding
Stimulation
Natural and synthetic feeding effectors
Meat meal
Soybean mealFish meal
~ +
+
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. 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. 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%
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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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)
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. 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. Feed intake
Feed intake was consistent among experimental diets, except when
fishmeal was removed in the 1% fish oil diet
29. FCR
At 1% fish oil, FCR significantly increased, starting at 5% fishmeal and below
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
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.
36. 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
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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
41. 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.