Feed Formulations using rendered animal products for maximising i i profit in aquaculture diets Dr Geoff Allan NSW Department of Primary Industries, Port Stephens Fisheries Institute, NSW Australia Discuss formulation for model species commonly farmed to illustrate potential Rainbow trout Sea bass/sea bream Shrimp Tilapia Mud crabs For model species Digestibility Protein/energy utilisation Comparative growth studies Cost-effectiveness Summary & Conclusions Plan Aquafeeds Higher protein diets than terrestrial animals because much lower requirement for energy Only some species can utilise lipid for energy (e.g. salmon and trout) Only some species can utilise starch for energy (e.g. carp, catfish, tilapia) Some species are inefficient at utilising lipid or starch and are fed high protein diets (protein is partly utilised for energy) (e.g. red sea bream) Aquafeeds are expensive high protein & expensive processing (extrusion or steam pelleting) Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Production in 2006 550,473 t* All trouts 632,000 t* Cold temperate Diadromous (anadromous) *FAO FishStat 2006 data. 1
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Farmed in raceways, ponds, sea cages, tanks Carnivore, tolerates high lipid & relatively high starch General diet for trout* Ingredient % Seawater Freshwater Fishmeal 55 40 PBM 8 BM 0-5 SBM 5 5-10 Wheat 14.4 12-25 Vit/min 1.6 1.6 Fish oil 24 12-21 Astaxanthin 0.01 - Proximate composition % Moisture 8 8 Crude protein 43 45 Crude fat 28 18-26 *Hardy, 2002. Trout. In Webster & Lim. Nutrient Requirements and Feeding of Finfish for Aquaculture. CABI Digestibility* Ingredient Apparent digestibility coefficient (ADC) Protein Energy MBM 54-87 64-77 MM 81-92 BM 80-93 67-89 PBM 65-96 74-94 FeM 52-86 59-85 Variable Methods used to measure digestibility quality of meals *Values cited in Yu Yu, 2008 or Lee, Robinson & Lim. In: Lim, Webster & Lee. Alternative Protein Sources in Aquaculture Diets. Haworth Press. Variability in digestible nutrient value fish meal vs rendered products* ADC Gross Digestible CP GE CP GE CP DE FM 2 91-92 89-91 62-65 18-22 57-59 17-20 BM 8 82-99 79-99 78-95 22-26 75-90 20-22 MBM 6 83-89 68-83 50-59 17-23 44-50 13-17 PBM 2 87-91 77-88 65-69 21-22 59-60 17-19 FeM 4 81-87 76-80 82-88 25-26 67-72 19-21 Range of products tested Large improvement in quality in recent years (up to 1999) Best values with less ash meals BM consistently highly digestible *Bureau et al., 1999 Aquaculture 180: 345-358 & Bureau et al., 2000 Aquaculture 181:281-291. 2
Utilization - MBM* Utilization PBM, FeM* Ingredient Recommended a Feed efficiency c % FM repl % in diet % FM repl % in diet MBM (no aa) 32 24 16 12 MBM (in conjunction with SBM & corn gluten meal with suppl amino acids) 100 20 a Inclusion content not reducing growth Ingredient Recommended a Maximum b % FM repl % in diet % FM repl % in diet PBM 80 28 100 35 FeM 30 10 40 14 a Inclusion content not reducing growth b Inclusion content with 5-10% reduction growth & feed efficiency b Inclusion content with 5-10% reduction growth & feed efficiency c Inclusion content not reducing feed efficiency *Values cited in Yu Yu, 2008 or Lee, Robinson & Lim. In: Lim, Webster & Lee. Alternative Protein Sources in Aquaculture Diets. Haworth Press. *Values cited in Yu Yu, 2008 or Lee, Robinson & Lim. In: Lim, Webster & Lee. Alternative Protein Sources in Aquaculture Diets. Haworth Press. Other data Importance of supplemental amino acids with rendered products: met + lys in FeM Iso low, leu high, met low in BM Met low MBM Palatability issues, particularly FeM Combining products, because of complimentary amino acid contents, increases potential use EFA profile of rendered animal products inferior to fishmeal & diets should be supplemented with fish oil most important for cold water culture & to preserve human health benefits Conclusions for trout Rendered products well digested & well utilized in diets for trout Potential for increased use (success with up to 100% replacement of fishmeal in some studies) PBM excellent ingredient Quality of rendered product critical e.g. protein digestibility can range from 54% to over 90% depending on quality of MBM Low ash better for MBM 3
Sea bream/sea bass Family Perciformes Sparidae, Serranidae, Moronidae, Lutjanidae. Common sea breams or porgies e.g. Pagrus spp,gilthead sea bream Sparus aurata and common dentex Dentex dentex (all from the Sparidae), European sea bass Dicentrachus labrax, Striped bass Morone saxatilus, Groupers Epinephalus sp (Serranidae). Production in 2006 1,412,424 t* Warm temperate Marine/euryhaline *FAO FishStat 2006 data. Sea bream/sea bass Farmed mainly in sea cages, limited production in tanks Fed extruded pellets in Europe & USA Fed pellets or mixed low-value (= trash fish ) in Japan & China Fed low-value fish in SE Asia Sea bream/sea bass Data for red sea bream - general diet Ingredient % Fish meal 60 Fish oil 13 Wheat 22 Blood meal 4 Premix 1.5 Composition DP (%) 42 DE (MJ/kg) 19 DP:DE ratio (g/mj) 22 4
Digestibility* ADC Content Ingredient inclusion CP GE DP DE (%) (%) (%) (%) MJ kg -1 FM 1 42-50 88-94 88-99 62-72 17-21 MBM 2 30-50 62-65 72-70 36-37 12 PBM 2 30-50 85-87 91 58-60 22 BM 2 15 82 81 82 20 Lamb meal 2 30-60 81 92-92 60 18-20 Beef meal 2 30-60 90-95 87-98 78-82 23-26 Ext wheat 2 30-40 100 74-77 17 15 Wheat starch 2 15-45 - 90-50 - 14-8 1 Glencross et al. 2003; 2 Booth et al. 2005. Digestible nutrient or energy = ADC x comp. Utilisation - experiment 45% DP & 17MJ DE/kg Basal diet - fish meal, fish oil & ext-wheat poultry meal : 36, 48, 61 or 73% meat meal : 35% meat meal / blood meal : 32/12 or 50/12% soybean meal : 42, 60 or 78% Experimental units = 200L cages in 10 000L tanks 15 x 14g fish/cage, 5 cages/diet, fed to satiation 2/day Duration 50 days, 27 C, 30-34ppt Utilization experiment PD (g kgbw -0.7 day -1 ) 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 ab ab ab cd ef ab bc de a cd n=5 f 0.0 COM P36 P48 P61 P73 MM34 M32/BM12 M50/BM12 S42 S60 S78 5
Growth trial 41% DP & 18MJ DE/kg; DP:DE = 22gDP/MJDE Commercial barramundi control diet Experimental units = 1000L cages in 0.1 ha lined pond 47 x 88g fish/cage, 4 cages/diet, fed to satiation 2/day Duration 105 days, 19-27 C, 30-34ppt Diets for growth trial FM16 FM25 FM60 COM Blood meal 15 13 4 - Wheat 10 10 22 - Fish meal 16 25 60 - Fish oil 15 15 13 - Meat meal 5 5 - - Poultry meal 18.3 8.4 - - Soy meal 19.2 22 - - Premix 1.5 1.5 1.5 - DP 41 41 42 41 DE 18 18 19 17 DP:DE ratio 22 22 22 22 6
Conclusions Meatmeals highly palatable & digestible for red sea bream (and other breams and basses) Can replace 73% of fishmeal protein 38% of the diet No adverse taste when fish oil added Greater use restricted by: High saturated fat, high ash, low protein Price dependent on protein & fat content Unsustainable demand for fishmeal Meatmeal is cost-effective alternative Ingredients in MBM + BM+ PBM diet cost b/w 15-20% less than 60% FM diet (depends on current prices) Shrimp Production in 2006-3.1 million tonnes* Litopenaeus vannamei 2.1 million tonnes* Penaeus monodon 0.7 million tonnes* Tropical, omnivore/carnivore Estuarine ponds marine/brackish water Fed pellets *FAO FishStat 2006 data. Indicative diet for shrimp Penaeus monodon Ingredient % Fishmeal 40-45 Shrimp head meal/squid meal 5-10 Soybean meal 5-10 Grain 25-30 Other 5-10 Dig.protein (%) >35 Dig energy (MJ/kg) 13-14 Fat (%) 8-10 Nutritive value of meat meal Apparent digestibility Coefficient (%) Product MM (81%cp13%lipid) M+B(beef) 47%cp7%lipid M+B(lamb) (53%cp7%lipid) Fish meal Soybean meal Protein 83 77 74 93 92 Energy 64 61 55 89 71 7
Utilization Experiment Weight gain results Ingredient Basal MM15 MM30 Meatmeal 15 30 (53%cp;7%lipid) Fishmeal 27 19 10 Mar invert 20 20 20 Soybmeal 10 5 0 Gluten 6 6 6 Wheat 29 28 27 + Additives Weight Gain (g/wk) 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Basal MM15 MM30 Ridley Trial included a commercial diet - Ridley Diet 15shrimp/cage; 5/diet;6 wk; 23-32oC;>90% surv. FCR results Results for PBM with L. vannamei* PBM pet food grade 66% cp FCR 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Basal MM15 MM30 Ridley Diet Tested with L. vannamei High and low protein test diets Replaced up to 80% fish meal No effects on wt gain, FCR, PER, survival * Cruz-Suarez et al., 2007. Aquaculture 272:466-476 8
Conclusions Meatmeals highly palatable & digestible Replace up to 80% of fishmeal protein 30 % of the diet No adverse taste when fish oil added Greater use in shrimp diets restricted by: High saturated fat, high ash, low Tilapia Production in 2006 2.3 million tonnes global; 202,040 t Philippines* Oreochromis niloticus (O. mossambicus) Tropical, omnivore Freshwater (brackishwater) ponds, cages Intensive recirc. tanks Greenwater culture, natural feed, single ingredients, farm-made feeds, pellets protein Specifications/requirements for dietary protein for tilapia Fertilized pond culture: 20 25% protein in feed (FCR 0.75-1:1) Cage culture: 28 32% protein in feed (FCR = 1.3 1.8) Age affects requirements/specifications Larvae: 40% protein in feed Fry: 35% protein in feed Juvenile to adult: 25-30 % protein in feed Dietary nutrient level requirement of complete feeds for tilapia, carps and milk fish Protein (%) Lipid (%) Fatty acid (%) Tilapia 20 40 4-10 0.5 (18:2ω6) Carps 20 40 5-10 ω6 + ω3 1 + (0.5 1) Milkfish 24 40 7 10% 1 2 (18:3ω3) 9
Digestibility of rendered products for tilapia* Ingredient Protein % ADC % Dig Prot %^ FM (low quality) 57 89 51 MBM 47 78 37 PBM 63 90 57 FeM 87 79 69 SBM 51 92 47 CGMeal 70 91 64 *Guimaraes et al., 2008. Aquaculture Nutrition 14:396-404 ^Calculated Conclusions for tilapia Rendered animal products can replace 100% fishmeal in practical diets PBM & MBM excellent ingredients FeM less well utilized Fasakin et al., 2005; Rodrigues Serna et al., 1996; Guimaraes et al., 2008 Mud crabs Production of all crabs in 2006 224,800 tonnes global; 7,800 tonnes Philippines* 4 species most commonly cultured are Scylla paramamosain & S. serrata Tropical, omnivore Brackishwater/marine ponds Incliding In association with mangrove forrestry Cages/hapas Intensive recirc. Tanks for shedding (not in Philippines) Fed on low value fish, some use of shrimp pellets for part of the culture cycle Scylla paramamosain Scylla serrata Specifications/requirements for dietary protein for mud crabs In laboratory based studies, diets with 45-55% crude protein and 9-15% lipid performed best 10
Digestibility of rendered products for mud crabs (S. serrata)* Ingredient ADC Protein % ADC Energy % FM (high quality) 88 88 MBM 86 78 PBM 88 85 FeM^ 95 92 SBM 92 89 LupinMeal 89 90 *Richardson et al., 2007. unpublished data ACIAR ^ for S. paramamasain Mud crabs* Ingredient %FM repl Final Wt FCR 0 11.2 ab 1.6 a PBM 20 11.4 a 1.6 a PBM 40 10.2 ab 1.7 a PBM 80 8.0 abc 1.9 a PBM/SBM 40 7.5 bc 1.9 a PBM/SBM 60 7.8 abc 2.0 a PBM/SBM 80 8.2 a 1.9 a * Richardson et al., 2007. unpublished data ACIAR for S.serrata Conclusions for mud crabs Rendered animal products can replace 40% fishmeal in practical diets PBM excellent ingredient Limited research done but potential demonstrated Cost-effectiveness Ingredient CP% US$ $/unit CP Fishmeal 65 1050 16.2 MBM 50 581 11.6 BM 80 827 10.3 PBM 60 950 15.8 Richardson et al., 2007 Unpublished data, ACIAR 11
Conclusions Data for trout, seabream/sea bass & shrimp indicative of that for other species Can save money without compromising performance using rendered products to replace fishmeal in aquaculture diets Conclusions 50% replacement of fishmeal for all species easily achievable with high quality rendered products ( or combinations) on basis of providing equivalent digestible protein and digestible energy Higher replacement levels are achievable (up to 100%) provided: Understand nutritional requirements for target species Low ash, high total protein rendered meals EAA & EFA balanced in diets 12