Evaluation of HP-DDG and DDGS in high protein or low protein diets for rainbow trout Onchorhynchus mykiss

Transcription

1 Evaluation of and in high protein or low protein diets for rainbow trout Onchorhynchus mykiss V. Denstadli, G. Shurson, M. Penn, Å. Krogdahl, M. Øverland

2 Bioethanol co-products Used in our study (DM basis): Crude protein: 29.7% Crude lipid: 14.4% Crude protein: 47.4% Crude lipid: 5.7% Fractionation: Germ Endosperm Pericarp

3 The protein requirement 140 g! LT-FM 65-7 CP 43-45% CP? 23-28% CP

4 Aims To replace typical plant ingredients with and in high or low protein diets for rainbow trout, and To evaluate the effect of protein level (high or low) on fish performance To investigate the nutritional value of both co-products To determine whether or affect gut health General remarks FM inclusion levels were kept constant or can not replace FM Lys and Met were supplemented to meet/exceed requirements

5 Experimental diets HPDDG High CP HPDDG HPDDG Low CP Sunflower expeller ,5 0 Soy protein conc Rapeseed meal ,5 0 Peas HPDDG Fishmeal Fish oil Analysed N*6.25, % Gross energy, MJ/kg Total P, g/kg

6 Fish and husbandry HPDDG High CP HPDDG HPDDG Low CP Rainbow trout, intitial weight 142 g Fresh water, 9-13 C 3 tanks per diet, 20 fish per tank Feeding 5-1 in excess 77 days, % weight gain

7 Experimental design HPDDG High 1 CP Low CP 2 HPDDG HPDDG Factorial -protein level (high or low) -replacement level (0, 50, )

8 Experimental design HPDDG High CP HPDDG HPDDG Low CP One-way -Diets

9 Performance Responses Feed intake, weight gain, feed conversion ratio Nutrient digestibilities Main nutrients + AA Phosphorus Gastro intestinal indicators Enzyme activities (Trypsin and LAP) Histology (distal intestine)

10 Feed intake and weight gain, g HIGH PROTEIN DIET HiPro vs LoPro: n.s. Replacement level: n.s Diets: n.s. Gain LOW PROTEIN DIET b FI a b

11 Feed conversion ratio HiPro vs LoPro: P<0.001 Replacement level: P<0.001 Diets: P< HIGH PROTEIN DIET LOW PROTEIN DIET a c c b c 0.85 cd

12 N digestibility, % HiPro vs LoPro: P<0.001 Replacement level: P<0.001 Diets: P< HIGH PROTEIN DIET a a LOW PROTEIN DIET b b b b

13 AA digestibilities, %

14 Energy digestibility, % HiPro vs LoPro: P<0.001 Replacement level: P=0.005 Diets: P< HIGH PROTEIN DIET LOW PROTEIN DIET a a a c bc b 60 50

15 P digestibility, % HIGH PROTEIN DIET c bc HiPro vs LoPro: P<0.001 Replacement level: P<0.001 Diets: P<0.001 a LOW PROTEIN DIET a a ab

16 Relative DI weights, % 1.2 HiPro vs LoPro: n.s Replacement level: n.s Diets: n.s

17 Relative Liver weights, % HiPro vs LoPro: n.s Replacement level: P<0.1 Diets: n.s

18 GI enzymes and histology HPDDG High CP HPDDG HPDDG Low CP

19 Leucine Amino Peptidase mmol/h/kg fish Pyloric intestine Distal intestine HP-DGS HP-DGS

20 Trypsin activity U/mg DM n.s n.s PI2 DI2

21 Histology of the distal intestine Normal intestine (Fish meal fed) SBM-induced enteritis (2 extracted SBM in the diet)

22 No significant differences in tissue architecture. All groups appeared within normal limits.

23 PAS-staining could confirm/refute if this is yeast and fed fish: High numbers of large cellular material within the intestinal lumen. The material does not appear to be tissue origin as little epithelial sloughing was observed. The epithelium appeared otherwise normal. Yeast remnants?

24 Effect of yeast on N digestibility HIGH PROTEIN DIET a a b b b b Reduced digestibility of N Partly caused by intact undigested yeast?

25 Conclusions CP level has a major impact on feed utilization Increased co-product inclusion supports increased feed utilization Inclusion of dephytinized co-products improves P digestibility reduced MCP supplementation No detrimental effects of or on DI histology Does Saccharomyces cerevisiae resist degradation, which in turn may reduce N digestibility? Not adressed in this study, but: wrong pigment for salmonids

26 Acknowledgements CHS: providing co-products Personell at the UMB fish laboratory, Aas Norway

27 Thank you!