Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Effect of Sangrovit® on the growth and performance of sea bass

1,297 views

Published on

In recent years, aquaculture has gained in importance as a renewable source of dietary protein and as a viable commercial activity. To maintain this position in the future and to continue to provide a good investment opportunity, the problems the sector currently faces must be addressed. One of the more important of these concerns is the cost of feed, which is estimated to be 50-60 percent of the total cost of production. Numerous studies on the use of different feed formulations, feed ingredients and feeding techniques have been conducted (Kaushik et al., 2004; Thiessen et al., 2003; Martinez et al., 2004; Enes et al.,2006; Izquierdo et al., 2003). These studies have included assessments of various alternative raw materials, vitamins and minerals, monitoring the amount of feed provided to the fish, and the addition of pigments and other feed additives to the diet. In particular, various feed additives with growth promoting properties came into prominence in these studies (Francis et al., 2005; Haroun et al., 2006; Abdel-Tawwab et al., 2008; Lara-Flores et al., 2003; Li and Gatlin, 2004;). Growth promoting feed additives may contain different ingredients as plant extracts, organic acids, probiotics, hormones etc.

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Effect of Sangrovit® on the growth and performance of sea bass

  1. 1. November | December 2012 Effect of Sangrovit® on the growth and performance of sea bass International Aquafeed is published five times a year by Perendale Publishers Ltd of the United Kingdom. All data is published in good faith, based on information received, and while every care is taken to prevent inaccuracies, the publishers accept no liability for any errors or omissions or for the consequences of action taken on the basis of information published. ©Copyright 2012 Perendale Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without prior permission of the copyright owner. Printed by Perendale Publishers Ltd. ISSN: 1464-0058The International magazine for the aquaculture feed industry
  2. 2. FEATURE Effect of Sangrovit ® on the growth and performance of sea bass by Dr. Ali Y. Korkut and Dr. Aysun Kop, E.U. Faculty of Fisheries, Aquaculture Department, Izmir, TurkeyI n recent years, aquaculture has gained in In the present study, the effect of Sangrovit® and 100 ppm (Group C) diet. The control and importance as a renewable source of dietary on growth, feed utilisation, and liver and visceral treatment group diets were formulated as 2 mm protein and as a viable commercial activity. fat reduction of sea bass, was investigated. extruded pellets by Agromarin Feed Factory To maintain this position in the future and to in Turkey. The nurient content of this pellet iscontinue to provide a good investment opportu- Materials and methods described in Table 1.nity, the problems the sector currently faces must This work was conducted at the Aegean The diets were prepared under specialbe addressed.One of the more important of these University Faculty of Fisheriesconcerns is the cost of feed, which is estimated hatchery facilities in Urla-Iskele in Table 1: Formulation of experimental diets.to be 50-60 percent of the total cost of produc- Turkey. Sea bass fry (average livetion. Numerous studies on the use of different weight = 17.03 ± 0.43 g) were Raw Materials Group A Group B Group Cfeed formulations, feed ingredients and feeding placed in nine 300 litre cylindrical-techniques have been conducted (Kaushik et al., conical polyester tanks (Figure Herring meal* 260 260 2602004; Thiessen et al., 2003; Martinez et al., 2004; 1). In this study, 585 sea bass in Anchovy meal** 180 180 180Enes et al.,2006; Izquierdo et al., 2003). These total were used. Sixty five fish Fish oil* 127 127 127studies have included assessments of various were placed in each tank, andalternative raw materials, vitamins and minerals, there were three replications per Soybean meal*** 217,97 217,47 216,97monitoring the amount of feed provided to treatment. The experiment was Corn gluten 60% CP 30 30 30the fish, and the addition of pigments and other conducted during the month of Wheat gluten 10 10 10feed additives to the diet. In particular, various March, April and May 2010, for Wheat meal 165 165 165feed additives with growth promoting properties a total of 90 days. The hatchery Vitamin/mineral Premix 10 10 10came into prominence in these studies (Francis et water was obtained directly fromal., 2005; Haroun et al., 2006;Abdel-Tawwab et al., the sea by passing it through sand Methionine and Lysine 0,03 0,03 0,032008; Lara-Flores et al., 2003; Li and Gatlin, 2004;). filters in an open system, without Sangrovit® (ppm) 0 50 100Growth promoting feed additives may contain the use of any heating apparatus.different ingredients as plant extracts, organic Water temperature was between Moisture max 12 12 12acids, probiotics, hormones etc. 14.3 ±0.18 and 16.49 ±0.170C, Crude ash max 12 12 12 dissolved oxygen was between The benzo[c]phenanthridine and protopin 7.43±0.02 and 6.37±0.05 mg l-1. Crude protein min 44 44 44alkaloids (QBA/PA) extracted from plants are The fish were fed three times Crude fat min 16 16 16known to have antimicrobial, anti-inflamatory, and a day at rate of 0.7% - 1.1% of Starch max 10 10 10immune-modulatory effects (Vieira et al., 2008; total live weight, depending on Metabolic energy Kcal/kg 3470 3470 3470Rawling et al., 2009). These alkaloids the water temperature during the Crude fibre max 2,5 2,5 2,5include sanguinarine, chelerythrine allocryptopine experiment. *65,5% CP, Peruand Protopin. Three experimental diets were **71% CP, North of Turkey The commercial product Sangrovit®, an formulated (44% crude protein, ***44% CP, ASA, USAorganic and plant-based material containing 16% fat, 12% ash, and 3470 Cal/kg aProvided per kg of diet: 15 mg of vitamin A (500,000benzo[c]phenanthridine and protopin alkaloids diet) (Table 1) to contain different IU/g); 15 mg of vitamin D3 (100,000 IU/g); 60 mg(QBA/PA), increases feed intake in various ani- levels of Sangrovit® premix (1:10 of vitamin E (500 IU/g); 2.5 mg of vitamin K; 7.5 mg of thiamin; 15 mg of riboflavin; 7.5 mg of pyridoxine;mals categories such as swine and poultry and dilution) (ANC Animal Nutrition 87.5 mg of nicotinic acid; 2.5 mg of folic acid; 25 mgmay stimulate digestive enzyme secretion, which Center, PHYTO BIOTICS) which of vitamin B12 (1,000 mg/kg); .5 g of inositol; 62.5 mgwould improve feed digestibility, nutrient avail- was supplemented at 0.0 (control of biotin (2%); 25 mg of calcium pantothenate; 2 g ofability and thereby feed conversion. Group A), 50 ppm (Group B) choline (50%). 28 | InternatIonal AquAFeed | november-December 2012
  3. 3. Fatten up your bottom line. Bühler high-performance animal and aqua feed productionsystems are used by leading companies around the world. These producers know theycan rely not just on the technology itself, but also on the support that accompanies it. Aservice combining local presence with global expertise both lowers feed mill operatingcosts and increases capacity utilization. To find out more, visit www.buhlergroup.comBühler AG, Feed & Biomass, CH-9240 Uzwil, Switzerland, T +41 71 955 11 11, F +41 71 955 28 96fu.buz@buhlergroup.com, www.buhlergroup.comInnovations for a better world.
  4. 4. FEATUREconditions, and imported Sangrovit® wasadded to the experimental feeds after beingdissolved in fish oil. Biometric measurementsfor growth performance (body weight, totallength, fork length) were obtained at thebeginning of the study, and this process wasrepeated every 30 days. Fish body weightwas determined using a 0.001 g precisionscale, and body length was measured usinga 30 cm ruler. Growth performance andfeed utilisation were assessed by net weightgain (NWG), Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR),Spezific Growth Rate (SGR) and ConditionFactor (CF). Calculations of this formulationswere made as follows: FCR= feed intake/ weight gain (Barrias and Oliva-Teles, 2000) SGR= (ln Final Weight/ ln Initial Weight)/ days (Barrias and Oliva-Teles, 2000) CF= Final Weight/( Final Length)3 Fish were anesthetised with a phenoxy-phe-nolic compound. Also, at the beginning and at theend of the experiment, five fish from each tank Results and discussion There have been few Sangrovit® studieswere dissected to obtain their internal organs, The water parameters reflected the natural conducted using aquatic species, but Rawling etliver weights were recorded, and the visceros- water conditions in the location where the study al, 2009 reported on the effect of Sangrovit®omatic (VSI) and was conducted. They were characteristic spring in red tilapia (O. niloticus). Fish were fed equal hepatosomatic (HSI )indexes were then calcu- semester conditions, and this environment had amounts of diets containing various proportionslated. Calculations were made using the following no negative impact on fish development or of Sangrovit® for 60 days: 25 mg/kg (Diet 25S),formulae (Metailler, 1986; Kaushik, 1998; Martinez behavior, their feeding pattern, and or on the level 50 mg/kg (Diet 50S) 75 mg/kg (Diet 75S) andand Vasquez, 2001; Ho�su et al., 2003; Cheng et of stress that they were subjected to. 100 mg/kg (Diet 100S), and growth, performanceal., 2005; Korkut et al., 2007): During the study period, fish average live weight and health status were subsequently monitored. and live weight gain The Sangrovit®-fed fish gained signifi- Table 2: Growth Performance Parameters for Experimental Groups for all treatment cantly more weight (71.85±8.98, 67.85±3.32, Parameters Group A Group B Group C groups increased 66.80±1.98, 67.70±8.06 respectively) than (Control) (50 ppm) (100ppm) incrementally (Table control fish (51.00±1.84). SGR was significantly 2). Final average improved in Sangrovit®-fed fish (4.05±0.20, Initial number of fish 180 180 180 body weights for 3.98±0.08, 3.94±0.05, 3.96±0.18 respectively) Groups A, B and C versus control fish (3.54±0.06). Initial Average Live 17.027±0,36 17.037±0,44 17.027±0,49 were 49.907±1.28 Similarly, we have shown here that sea bass, Weight (g) g, 55.243±1.03 g, when fed 100 ppm Sangrovit® for 90 days, exhibit Final Average Live 49.907±1.28a 55.243±1.03a 62.217±1.35b and 62.217±1.35 g, a significant improvement in body weight gain over Weight (g) respectively. Group fish that receive no Sangrovit in the diet. The values Live Weight Gain (g) 32.88±0.41a 38.21±0.83b 45.19±1.18b A and Group B final for FCR for all groups were similar, but fish growth, Mortality (number of average body weights body weight gain and SGR for fish in Group C (100 36 35 36 dead fish) were not significantly ppm) were significantly different from the control FCR 1.29 1.27 1.26 different (p>0.05), group. These data suggest that the application of SGR 0.67a 0.71b 0.74b but the final average Sangrovit® to the diet of sea bass from the fry VSI 6.84 6.81 6.69 body weight of the stage through to harvest can contribute to low fish in Group C was mortality, a good FCR, and improved growth and HSI 1.79 1.73 1.67 significantly greater performance relative to fish that do not consume CF 0.92 1.01 1.14 (p<0.05) than was Sangrovit®. However, studies on commercial farms Values expressed as means±standard deviation the final average (soil pools, net cages, etc.) may provide different abSignificant differences between groups are indicated by difference in body weight of fish in results, due to the varying environmental and feed- superscript letters. Group A. ing conditions that would be encountered. Mortality during In conclusion, recent increases in raw mate- HSI= Liver Weight/Body Weight x 100 the experiment was 20 percent, 19.4 percent and rial prices have made it necessary to find alterna- VSI= Viscera Weight/ Body Weight x 100 20 percent for Groups A, B and C, respectively tive feed ingredients and feed additives that will ANOVA was used to assess variance within (Table 2). The values for FCR, SGR, VSI, HSI and help to reduce the overall cost of the rations.and among treatment groups and repetitions, CF are listed in Table 2, and although incremental Sangrovit® has been shown here to have aand differences between initial and final measured trends are evident for each parameter based on positive impact on the growth and performancevalues were assessed using the t-test. Due to a Sangrovit® content, there were no significant of sea bass, warranting its inclusion in the feedinglack of homogeneity among groups, data were differences (p>0.05) among treatment groups, program of this economically important species.analysed using the Kruskal-Willis test. Statistical except for the SGR in Group C (SGR 0.74),analysis was conducted using SPSS 09.01 for which was elevated relative to Group A (control) ReferencesWindows. (SGR 0.67) (p<0.05). Available from the publisher on request november-December 2012 | InternatIonal AquAFeed | 29
  5. 5. This digital re-print is part of the November | December 2012 edition of International LINKSAquafeed magazine. Content from the magazine is available to view free-of-charge, both as a fullonline magazine on our website, and as an archive of individual features onthe docstoc website.Please click here to view our other publications on www.docstoc.com. VO L U M E 1 5 I S S U E 6 2 0 1 2 • See the full issue An overview of the UK fish vaccination industry • Visit the International Aquafeed website Why check selenomethionine levels in selenium yeast? Extrusion technology for the production of micro-aquatic feeds • Contact the International Aquafeed Team and shrimp feeds EXPERT TOPIC – Salmon • Subscribe to International Aquafeed THE INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE FOR THE AQUACULTURE FEED INDUSTRYIAF12.06.indd 1 07/11/2012 17:39To purchase a paper copy of the magazine, or to subscribe to the paperedition please contact our Circulation and Subscriptions Manager on the linkabove. INFORMATION FOR ADVERTISERS - CLICK HERE www.aquafeed.co.uk

×