Development of A Low Fish

Fox, J .M., Lawrence, A.L. and Smith, F. 2004.
Development of a Low-fish Meal Feed Formulation for Commercial Production of

Litopenaeus vannamei. In: Cruz Surez, L.E., Ricque Marie, D., Nieto Lpez, M.G., Villarreal, D., Scholz, U. y Gonzlez, M.
2004. Avances en Nutricin Acucola VII. Memorias del VII SimposiumInternacional de Nutricin Acucola. 16-19 Noviembre,
2004. Hermosillo, Sonora, Mxico

238
Development of a Low-fish Meal Feed Formulation for
Commercial Production of Litopenaeus vannamei

J oe M. Fox,
1

Addison L. Lawrence
2
and Franz Smith
2

1
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi,
Texas, USA 78412
2
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Shrimp Mariculture Project, 1300 Port
AvenuePort Aransas, Texas, USA 78373

Abstract

Fish meal is used in marine shrimp feeds because it is high in protein, highly digestible and is an effective
feed attractant. Reasons for current interest in its replacement include irregular availability, variable quality,
perceived contribution to deterioration of fisheries, potential for adulteration, contamination with
hydrocarbons and biological pathogens, and increasing cost. Growth trials were conducted with juvenile
Litopenaeus vannamei to evaluate modifications in nutrient supplementation/restriction of a basal fish meal
replacement formula at the 50% replacement level. Trials compared growth and survival of shrimp fed a
basal control feed to experimental feeds in which crystalline amino acids (CAA), oil and lecithin, blood meal
and specific minerals were modified. Improved or similar growth relative to the control feed were shown
with reduced levels of CAA, removal of menhaden oil, inclusion of a lower level of lecithin, and maintenance
of blood meal and mineral supplements at their basal levels. This information was used to develop a
generalized fish meal replacement formulation for marine penaeid shrimp using readily available partially-
purified ingredients. Low- and high-marine animal meal feed formulations are compared.

Running title: shrimp fish meal replacement

Introduction

Although the world supply of fish meal has been constant, about 6.2 MMT (Hardy, 2001),
current data on Gulf of Mexico menhaden landings indicate a short-fall so far this year
(http://www.st.nmfs.gov/stat/market_news). Estimates of the portion of world supply used
by aquaculture range between 18 (Barlow, 2000) and 31% (http://www.feap.info), with the
remaining portion used for terrestrial production feeds. Compounded commercial shrimp
production feeds contain about 25% fish meal (Tacon and Barg, 1998).

The availability of fish meal is largely dependent upon weather patterns (e.g., El Nio) and
ability to locate fish in harvest grounds (Pontecorvo, 2001) and perception of over-
exploitation, whether real or not, has caused projection of higher future prices (Delgado et
Fox, J .M., Lawrence, A.L. and Smith, F. 2004. Development of a Low-fish Meal Feed Formulation for Commercial Production of

239
al., 2002). According to FAO (2002), only 18% of total fish stocks are over-exploited and
these species are typically long-lived, slow-growing ones less able to support high
exploitation rates. On the other hand, pelagic fish used for fish meal/oil are
characteristically small and bony and not suitable for human consumption.

The use of fish meal in aquaculture feeds has undergone considerable recent scrutiny. One
area of concern regards the trophic efficiency associated with aquaculture use of fish meal.
An estimated 3.75 kg of fish are required to produce 1.0 kg of shrimp (FCR =1.5, 5 kg fish
=1 kg fish meal, 25% fish meal inclusion rate). Another issue regards bans on use of fish
meal in terrestrial feeds. Fish meal has is considered ultimately capable of causing bovine
spongiaform encephalopathy (BSE) due to its potential for adulteration with meat meals
and other byproducts implicated with this disease. Fish meal has also been verified as
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In three independent studies, 37 fish
meal and fish feed samples from six countries were tested for PCB contamination: almost
all samples were confirmed positive (J acobs, 2002; Easton, 2002; CFIA, 1999).

World shrimp production has eclipsed 1 MMT and is one of the factors increasing demand
for fish meal. With increasing demand and steady supply, price increases are seemingly
inevitable. One-third of the fish used to make fish meal inputs, about 10 MT, is converted
to aquaculture feeds (Tacon, 1998; Pike, 1998). The remaining two-thirds of the fish, 22
Mt, is used to make fish meal for chicken, pig and other animal feeds, although the share of
aquaculture continues to increase. The proportion of fish meal supplies used for farming
fish rose from 10% in 1988 to 17% in 1994 and 33% in 1997 (Pike, 1998; Tacon, 1999).
Moreover, fish meal prices have increased substantially in the past three decades and are
likely to increase further with continued growth in demand (Naylor et al., 2000). One
estimate predicts fish meal and oil in aquaculture will rise by more than 50% by 2010
(Pike, 2000). Increases in fish meal and fish oil prices could undermine the profitability of
many aquaculture enterprises. However, some increased availability of fish meal for
aquaculture is likely to occur with decreased use for swine or poultry production.


240
As a renewable biotic resource, fish meal is high in protein (60-75%, dm basis), depending
on species and quality of production, and highly digestible (ADP =81%; Akiyama et al.,
1989; Forster and Dominy, 2001). It has relatively high energy content compared to other
protein byproducts (14.3 vs. 11.7 mJ DE/kg from meat meal; Pike, 1999). Fish meal is
highly palatable and, at typical inclusion levels (e.g., 25%), is an effective feed attractant
(Coman, 1996; Hertrampf and Piedad-Pascual, 2000). It also
contains significant levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), highly unsaturated fatty
acids (HUFA), minerals, unknown growth factors and phospholipids.

In order to use fish meal in commercial production feed formulations for marine penaeid
shrimp and other organisms, substantial variation in its nutritional composition due to
source must be recognized. Table 1 exemplifies the variation between herring and white
fish meal. This comparison shows substantial variation in protein, lipid, glycine, proline,
calcium and phosphorus, all of which implies variable use in feed formulation. Further
examination of this variation in terms of essential amino acid (EAA) content is
shown in Table 2. Comparison of EAA content indicates highest variation in terms of
arginine and lysine.

Apparent chemical score (ACS) of protein from various feedstuff proteins in terms of EAA
requirement of marine penaeid shrimp is shown in Table 3 and clearly indicates that, in
terms of the EAA shown, none of the non-fish meal ingredients shown could serve as a
single replacement for fish meal. This indicates that any potential for replacement of fish
meal by one novel ingredient could be difficult, but rather possibly accomplished by a
combination of ingredients.


241
Table 1. Variation in biochemical composition of fish meal
1

Nutrient Herring meal Whitefish meal
protein 71% 66%
lipid 9% 5%
water 8% 8%
ash 12% 21%
energy, digestible 11.0 mJ /kg 10.8 mJ /kg
lysine 7.78 g/100 g protein 7.22 g/10 g protein
arginine 6.34 g/100 g protein 6.58 g/10 g protein
methionine 2.94 g/100 g protein 2.72 g/10 g protein
threonine 4.14 g/100 g protein 4.05 g/10 g protein
glycine 6.00 g protein 9.90 g/10 g protein
alanine 6.30 g/100 g protein 6.30 g/10 g protein
proline 4.20 g/100 g protein 5.30 g/10 g protein
calcium 2.04% 7.17%
phosphorus 1.42% 3.80%
1
http://www.fao.org; NRC, 1993; Cowey, 1999
fats have a much lower ratio (e.g., approximately 0.05-0.19. For consideration, humans require a ratio of 0.02:1 of n-3:n-
6 FA for best growth (Pike, 1999).

Table 2. Variation in essential amino acid content of fish meal
1

Fish meal Source arginine methionine lysine threonine
anchovy 3.67 1.94 5.08 2.78
herring 4.61 2.14 5.66 3.01
sardine 3.25 1.95 5.55 2.70
menhaden 3.58 1.77 4.70 2.43
white fish 4.16 1.72 4.56 2.56
CV 0.14 0.09 0.10 0.08
1
percentage as-fed; Cowey, 1990

Table 3. Apparent chemical score of various feedstuff proteins in terms of EAA requirement by marine
penaeid shrimp
1

lysine arginine methionine threonine
Requirement (%
protein)
4.67
a
5.4
b
2.0
c
3.5
c

herring meal 169 144 153 114
white fish meal 157 124 138 114117
menhaden meal 156 103 137 117108
blood meal 142 44 63 136
meat and bone
meal
111 124 67 93
poultry byproduct
meal
95 123 90 100
soybean meal 141 145 72 106
1
Apparent chemical score is determined by dividing the apparent requirement for an EAA by its concentration as
percentage of protein within an ingredient.
a
Fox et al. (1995)
b
Chen et al. (1992)
c
estimated by authors


242
A comparison of fatty acids (FA) content of various fish oils to various other oil/fat sources
is shown in Table 4. This comparison indicates high variance in FA content among herring
oils and menhaden oil. It also shows the obvious lack of marine FA in terrestrial animal-
and plant-derived oils. The n-3 marine FA, eicosopentaenoic and docosohexaenoic acid,
are essential for normal growth and survival of marine penaeid shrimp. Fish oil has a n-
3:n-6 FA ratio of 15.7-16.7; whereas, terrestrial-source

Table 5 compares mineral composition of various fish meals to other ingredient meals
sourced from terrestrial animals and plants. Fish meal is typically lower in Ca and P than
meat meal and meat and bone meal. It is also lower in Mg and Cu than meat and bone
meal. Soybean meal contains less Ca and P than most fish meal sources, but is higher in
Mg and Cu content.

Vitamin content in various fish meals is compared to other feed ingredients in Table 6 and
shows relatively similar biotin content of fish meal to other ingredients. On the average,
fish meal is substantially higher in choline content than blood meal or corn gluten meal and
somewhat higher than meat meal, meat and bone meal or soybean meal. It is lower in
choline content than poultry byproduct meal. Fish meal typically contains more thiamine
than blood meal, meat meal, meat and bone meal, and poultry byproduct meal, but
substantially less than soybean meal. Soybean meal and corn gluten meal contain no
vitamin B
12
. Vitamin E content of fish meal is typically higher than that of meat meal,
meat and bone meal, poultry byproduct meal and soybean meal. It is lower in vitamin E
content than corn gluten meal.

A comparison of energy content between fish meal (64%) and other energy feedstuffs
(Table 7) shows somewhat lower gross energy (GE) than that of soybean meal (48%).
However, in general, the GE value of fish meal is fairly similar to that of corn, wheat,
wheat bran and wheat middlings. Its GE content is somewhat higher than that of alfalfa.


243
In terms of metabolizable energy (protein), fish meal provides somewhat lower energy via
protein than corn, or wheat. As an energy source via protein it shows greater availability
than alfalfa, soybean meal, and wheat bran or wheat middlings. About 72% of GE in fish
meal is available for metabolic use, which is somewhat lower than that for corn (87.9%),
but substantially higher than that for alfalfa (44.1%), soybean meal (55.6%), wheat bran
(32.4%) or wheat middlings (46.9%).

Table 4. Fatty acid composition comparison, fish oils vs. other oils
1
Oil 18:2 n-6 18:3 n-3 20:5 n-3 22:6 n-3
herring-Atlantic 1.1 0.6 8.4 4.9
herring-Pacific 0.6 0.4 8.1 4.8
menhaden 1.3 0.3 11.0 9.1
poultry fat 19.5 1.0
beef tallow 3.1 0.6
corn oil 58.0 0.7
soybean oil 51.0 6.8
1
NRC, 1993

Table 5. Mineral composition comparison, fish meals vs. other meals
1

Ingredient Ca
2
P
2
Mg
2
Cu
3
Mn
3
Zn
3
Fe
3

herring 2.20 1.67 0.14 5.60 4.80 125 114
menhaden 5.19 2.88 0.15 10.30 37.00 144 544
white fish 7.31 3.81 0.18 5.90 12.40 90 181
blood meal 0.41 0.30 0.15 8.20 6.40 306 2,769
meat meal 8.27 4.10 0.27 9.70 9.50 80 441
meat/bone 9.40 4.58 1.13 150.00 12.50 89 508
poultry
byproduct
3.51 1.83 0.18 14.12 11.00 121 442
corn gluten 0.07 0.44 0.07 26.10 6.30 31 229
Soybean 0.30 0.65 0.29 23.10 30.60 52 140
1
NRC, 1993
2
percentage, as-fed
3
mg/kg, as-fed


244
Table 6. Vitamin composition comparison, fish meals vs. other meals
1

Ingredient Biotin
(mg/L)
Choline
(mg/L)
Thiamine
(mg/L)
B
12
(g/L) E (mg/L)
herring 0.49 5,266 0.4 430 22.1
menhaden 0.18 3,112 0.6 123 12.0
white fish 0.08 3,099 1.7 90 8.9
Blood 0.28 600 0.3 13
Meat 0.11 1,922 0.2 91 1.0
meat/bone 0.14 2,136 0.2 217 1.1
poultry
byproduct
0.09 6,029 0.2 301 2.2
corn gluten 0.19 352 0.3 23.4
Soybean 0.32 2,609 6.0 2.4
1
NRC, 1993

Table 7. Energy content comparison between fish meal and other energy feedstuffs
1

Ingredient Gross energy Metabolizable
energy
protein

% metabolizable energy
fish meal (64%) 4,023 2,899 72.1
alfalfa (17%) 3,747 1,653 44.1
corn 3,913 3,439 87.9
soybean meal (48%) 4,399 2,447 55.6
wheat 3,968 3,086 77.8
wheat bran 4,079 1,323 32.4
wheat middlings 4,156 1,951 46.9
1
Houser and Akiyama, 1997

The dry matter, protein and energy digestibility of menhaden fish meal is compared to that
of other meals in Table 8 and shows lower dry matter and protein digestibility by
Litopenaeus setiferus than that of wheat gluten, soybean meal or wheat flour. Conversely,
the energy it provides to this species is more digestible than that of wheat flour, meat and
bone meal or shrimp meal.


245
Another useful characteristic of fish meal is its relatively high phospholipid content
(Hertrampf and Piedad-Pascual, 2000) and the absence of phytate. Phytate or phytic acid is
found in high concentration in grain products (e.g., soybean meal) and reduces availability
of phosphorus and zinc.

Fishmeal replacement in marine shrimp feeds

The obvious question arises as to why replace fish meal in commercial production feed
formulations for marine penaeid shrimp. The following reasons are therefore offered: 1)
availability is sometimes irregular due to climate change (e.g., El Nio); 2) protein level,
quality and thus, digestibility, among types of fish meal are highly variable; 3) a perception
of exploitation of fisheries; 4) because it is commonly adulterated with meat meals (among
other things), it has potential to harbor bovine spongiform encephalopathy; 5) it can be
contaminated with PCBs, Salmonella sp.; and 6) its cost can fluctuate tremendously (e.g.,
$600-1,400/MT).

Table 8. Percentage dry matter, protein and energy digestibility of various feed ingredients by
Litopenaeus setiferus
1

Ingredient Dry matter Protein Energy
menhaden fish meal 57.86 80.81 71.55
Shrimp meal 48.66 75.38 62.23
meat and bone meal 54.09 75.62 67.85
soybean meal 60.26 86.44 72.00
wheat gluten 70.46 90.98 81.17
wheat flour 58.39 82.09 68.97
1
Brunson et al., 1997

Efforts at replacing fish meal with plant and meat meals have met with reasonable success
for various marine finfish and are summarized in Table 9 and show various levels of
replacement. In one of the more successful studies, an animal meal mix (e.g.,

246
ProPak
TM
) was used to replace up to 50% of the fish meal component of feeds offered
Sciaenops ocellatus (Meilahn et al., 1996). However, most efforts have focused on the use
of soybean meal, lupin or field pea meals.

In terms of marine and freshwater penaeid shrimp, several past and recent studies have
evaluated replacement of fish meal with a variety of plant protein meals (Table 10). Most
of these studies have involved, as with finfish, the use of soybean meal and have met with
variable levels of success. Only one of these studies has indicated potential for
100% replacement and involved use of soybean meal and distillers byproducts included in
feeds offered to Macrobrachium rosenbergii (Tidwell et al., 1993).

Recently, other studies (Table 11) have focused on replacement of fish meal in marine and
freshwater shrimp feeds through the use of meat byproducts or co-extruded meat
byproducts with plant meals (e.g., soybean poultry byproduct meal, egg supplement, flash-
dried poultry byproduct meal, meat and bone meal, etc.). In only one of these studies,
Samocha et al. (2004), was 100% replacement of fish meal shown.

As shown by the previous, most previous fish meal replacement studies have focused on
either on single plant protein replacement or preparation of coextruded specialty meals.
These approaches to fish meal replacement could be necessary for small mills, mills lacking
advanced formulation technology, or be warranted should a novel ingredient substantially
decreases ingredient cost of feeds. Our hypothesis is that a low-fish meal commercial
production feed for marine penaeid shrimp is possible using readily available partially-
purified ingredients. The objectives of this study were to 1) evaluate modifications in
nutrient supplementation/restriction of a basal fish meal replacement formula at the 50%
replacement level for L. vannamei and propose a generalized commercial production
formula for this species.Methods and Materials


247
Table 9. Summary of recent fish meal replacement studies in fin fish
Study Replacement Species
Kaushik et al., 2004 Plant proteins; decreased FM
protein to 2%
Dicentrarchus labrax
Chou et al., 2004 Soybean meal; replaced 40% of
FM protein
Rachycentron canadum
Williams, 2004 Meat meal, casein were good
replacements; soybean and lupin
meal, poor
Lates calcarifer
Glencross et al., 2003 Lupikn kernel meal; 37.5%
replacement at expense of FM
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Borlongan et al., 2003 Feed pea meal; 20% of total
protein
Chanos chanos
Booth et al., 2001 De-hulled field peas; improved
digestibility
Bidyanus bidyanus
Meilahn et al., 1996 ProPak
TM
(animal meal mix plus
crystalline EAA); replaced 50%
FM
Sciaenops ocellatus

Table 10. Replacement of fish meal in shrimp feeds using plant protein meals

Lim and Dominy, 1990 Soybean meal; 40% replacement
of anchovy fish, shrimp head and
squid meals
Litopenaeus vannamei
Piedad-Pascual et al., 1990 Soybean meal; 55% inclusion
level, low stocking density
P. monodon
Tidwell et al., 1993 Soybean meal and distillers
byproducts; 100% replacement,
but at low stocking density
Macrobrachium rosenbergii
Lim, 1996 Solvent-extracted cottonseed
meal
L. vannamei
Sudaryono, 1999 Various lupin meals P. monodon
Eusebio and Coloso, 1998 Cowpea, green mungbean, rice
bean, leaf meals
L. indicus
Penaflorida, 1995 Papaya, camote leaf meal P. monodon


248
Table 11. Replacement of fish meal in shrimp feeds using meat byproducts

Samocha et al., 2004 Co-extruded soybean poultry
byproduct meal and egg
supplement; 100% replacement
of FM
Litopenaeus vannamei
Davis and Arnold, 2000 Co-extruded soybean-poultry
byproduct meal, flash-dried
poultry byproduct meal; 50%
replacement of FM
L. vannamei
Yang et al., 2003 Meat and bone meal, poultry
byproduct meal; 50%
replacement of FM
Macrobrachium nipponense
Forster et al., 2003 Meat and bone meal; 25-75%
replacement, depending upon
source
L. vannamei
Cruz-Suarez et al., 2001 Canola meal; replaced a portion
of FM, soybean meal and wheat
L. vannamei
Sudaryono et al., 1995 Combination of shrimp head meal
and scallop waste gave best
results
Penaeus monodon

Source of shrimp

Postlarval shrimp (L. vannamei) were purchased from Shrimp Improvement Systems
(Plantation Key, FL) and reared in indoor cylindrical tanks connected to a recirculating
seawater treatment system at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
(TAES) Shrimp Mariculture Project (Port Aransas, TX) until achieving an appropriate size
for stocking of growth trial tanks.

Experimental design

Four optimization trials were undertaken in which shrimp were offered a basal feed
containing 12.5% fish meal: Trial 1 (EAA modification); Trial 2 (fish oil and lecithin
modification); Trial 3 (blood meal inclusion level); and Trial 4 (mineral modification).
Experimental system and stocking

J uvenile L. vannamei (mean initial weight 0.2-0.5 g) for Trial 1 were stocked into
experimental recirculating systems under the following conditions: 32.0 L (0.07 m
2


249
bottom area) rectangular tanks; five shrimp/tank; water exchange rate of 1,440% per day.
For Trials 2,3 and 4, shrimp of similar size were stocked into similar tanks but at a density
of 4 shrimp/tank and with 2,770% daily water exchange. Each experimental feed was
offered to shrimp at a ten-fold level of replication (i.e., 10 experimental tanks per dietary
treatment).Experimental feeds

A 35% crude protein basal control diet (Table 12) was formulated to contain 12.5%
menhaden fish meal and was slightly modified according to the following as-fed criteria.
Trial 1 modifications involved manufacture of six experimental feeds: low methionine
(0.10%), high methionine (0.50%), low lysine (0.10%), high lysine (0.50%), low arginine
(0.10%) and high arginine (0.50%). Trial 2 modifications to the basal diet called for
preparation of no-menhaden oil (0.00%) and low-menhaden oil (1.00%) experimental feeds
as well as low- (1.00%) and high-lecithin (5.00%) feeds. For Trial 3, blood meal content of
the basal control feed was modified into medium- (9.00%) and high-content (12.00%)
experimental feeds. Trial 4 modifications involved preparation of the following
experimental feeds: no NaCL (0.0%), 2.5% KCl and 4.0% CaHPO
4
.

Dry feed ingredients were first mixed in a vertical V-type mixer followed by addition of
water to achieve a wet mash consistency appropriate for subsequent cold extrusion through
a 3.0 mm die using a Hobart-200 mixer (Troy, OH) with meat chopper attachment.
Extruded feed strands were dried in a forced-air convection oven overnight to achieve a
dried moisture content of 10%. Dried feed strands were hand-ground with a mortar and
pestle and screened through #10 and #18 sieves to achieve appropriate-sized feed particles.


250
Table 12. Basal low fish meal control feed
Ingredient % as-fed
Wheat flour 37.40
Corn gluten 12.00
Soy protein 7.50
Crab meal 7.00
Fish meal 12.50
CaHPO
4
3.00
CMC binder 4.00
Blood meal 6.00
Menhaden oil 1.90
Lecithin 3.00
Fish solubles 2.00
KCl 1.50
NaCl 0.50
Cholestrol 0.20
Vitamin mix 1 0.27
Vitamin mix 2 0.23
L-lysine HCl 0.30
DL-methionine 0.30
L-arginine 0.30
Ascorbic acid (Stay-C vitamin C) 0.10

Feeding trial maintenance

J uvenile L. vannamei were offered feeds on a semi-continuous basis (20 feedings per day)
using automated wheel-type feeders. Experimental system water quality was evaluated in
terms of temperature, salinity and pH (daily) as well as NH
3
/NH
4
+
-N, NO
2
-N and NO
3
-N
(Clesceri, et al. 1998). All residual/uneaten feed, molts, feces and dead
shrimp were removed from experimental tanks on a daily basis. All experimental trials
were terminated after 31-33 days.

Results and Discussion

Periodic determination of water quality factors in experimental systems indicated that at no
time could any of the factors be considered outside appropriate ranges for normal growth
and survival of L. vannamei.


251
Trial 1

Results from Trial 1 are shown in Table 13. No significant difference (P>0.0500) was
shown in survival among shrimp fed both control and experimental feeds. Schefes test
(Day and Quinn, 1989) indicated that only in the case of shrimp fed the low-methionine
diet was instantaneous growth rate (IGR) of shrimp greater than that for shrimp fed the
basal control feed (P=0.0340); 7.87 0.25 vs. 7.58 0.22, respectively). This indicates
that a reduction of DL-methionine in the basal formulation from 0.3 to 0.1% could improve
growth and reduce overall feed cost in commercial formulations. Supplementation of DL-
methionine at >0.88% in research feeds offered to Penaeus monodon resulted in reduced
weight gain (Millamena et al., 1996). Results from Trial 1 also suggested that inclusion of
L-lysine HCl and L-arginine at levels at least as low or lower than of the basal formulation
could be possible.

Table 13. Survival and growth (IGR)
1
of juvenile L. vannamei offered feeds containing various levels of
crystalline amino acids
Dietary treatment Mean survival (%) Mean IGR (SD)
2

Basal feed 98
a
7.58 (0.22)
b

Low methionine (0.10%) 98
a
7.87 (0.25)
a

High methionine (0.50%) 98
a
7.66 (0.24)
b
Low lysine (0.10%) 98
a
7.72 (0.24)
b
High lysine (0.50%) 92
a
7.78 (0.18)
b
Low arginine (0.10%) 100
a
7.69 (0.19)
b
High arginine (0.50%) 100
a
7.94 (0.52)
b
1
Instantaneous growth rate (IGR) is defined as the natural log of the square root of the difference in initial vs. final mean
weight of shrimp divided by length in days of the trial.
2
Means having similar superscripts are not significantly different at P=0.0500.

Trial 2

Results from Trial 2 are shown in Table 14. There was no significant difference in survival
or IGR between shrimp offered the basal feed and any of the experimental feeds
(P>0.0500). An indication that menhaden oil (basal formulation level 1.90%) could be
reduced or removed from the basal feed formulation was presented. This is probably due to
non-limiting availability of n-3 HUFA from other sources in the feed (e.g., crab meal, fish

252
meal, fish solubles, etc.). It is likely that a lower level of lecithin supplementation is (from
3 to 1%) is also recommended, although numerically lower growth was shown.by shrimp
fed the low lecithin feed. Improved growth was shown by Gong et al. (2002) for juvenile
L. vannamei offered feeds containing 0.2 and 1.5% cholestrol and lecithin, respectively, vs.
3% lecithin.

Trial 3

Results from Trial 3 are shown in Table 15. There was no significant difference in survival
or IGR between shrimp offered the basal feed and any of the experimental feeds
(P>0.0500). However, both survival and IGR were numerically lower for shrimp fed the
high blood meal feed (12%). This suggests that, for the basal formulation, supplementation
with blood meal above the basal (6%) level could be harmful to shrimp.
Replacement of FM by blood meal in excess of 10% decreased growth in L. paulensis and
L. californiensis (Hertrampf and Piedad-Pascual, 2000). Also, as previously mentioned,
several countries have forbidden use of blood meal in terrestrial feeds (especially those fed
to ruminants) due to potential for transmission of BSE.

1
of juvenile L. vannamei offered feeds containing various levels of fish
oil and lecithin

2

Basal feed (1.90% menhaden oil
and 3.00% lecithin)
93.75
a
8.14 (0.22)
a

No-oil (0.00%) 97.91
a
7.88 (0.25)
a

Low oil (1.00%) 95.83
a
8.28 (0.24)
a
Low lecithin (1.00%) 85.41
a
7.57 (0.24)
a
High lecithin (5.00%) 91.66
a
8.02 (0.18)
a
1
2

1
of juvenile L. vannamei offered feeds containing various levels
of blood meal
2

Basal feed (6% blood meal) 87.50
a
9.56 (0.72)
a

Med blood meal (9%) 87.50
a
9.67 (0.91)
a

High blood meal (12%) 79.16
a
9.14 (1.02)
a

253
1
2

1
of juvenile L. vannamei offered feeds containing various levels
of minerals
2

Basal feed (0.5% NaCl, 1.50%
KCl, 3.0% CaHPO
4
)
86.36 10.00 (0.73)
a

No NaCl (0.0%) 97.73 9.35 (0.44)
b

2.5% KCl 83.33 9.22 (0.79)
b
4.0% CaHPO
4
93.75 9.57 (0.53)
a
1
2

Trial 4

Results from Trial 4 are shown in Table 16. Although there was no significant difference
in survival between shrimp offered the basal feed and any of the experimental feeds
(P>0.0500), a significant effect on IGR was shown by level of NaCl and KCl
supplementation. Reducing NaCl to 0.00% and increasing KCl to 2.5% significantly
decreased IGR of shrimp relative to those offered the basal feed. Dietary deficiencies of Na
and Cl have not been demonstrated in marine shrimp or fish (NRC, 1993); however, these
minerals could be required in grow-out feeds for low-salinity culture conditions. No
dietary requirement for K has been shown (He et al., 1992), despite a normal formulation
inclusion level is 0.9%. Increasing dietary CaHPO
4
from 3 to 4% did not increase IGR.
This could have been due to reduced digestibility at basic gut pH (Guillaume et al., 2001).

Conclusions from feeding trials

The previous feeding trials indicated that the base low fish meal feed (Table 12) could be
improved by decreasing concentration of DL-methione and that L-lysine HCl and L-
arginine content could also be reduced. Trial 2 showed that the basal low fish meal
formulation probably does not require addition of menhaden oil and that lecithin to level
could be reduced to 1%, albeit probably not without supplementation of dietary cholestrol.
There was no need to increase blood meal above 6%, although investigation into a lower

254
dietary inclusion level is warranted. No real change in mineral salt content of the low fish
meal basal feed was warranted.

Low- vs. High-Marine Animal Meal Formulation

Based upon the results of Trials 1-4, a low-marine animal meal feed is shown in Tables 17
(ingredient composition) and 18 (proximate analysis). A complete formulation is not
provided due to the proprietary nature of the formulation. It should be noted that the
proximate analysis, Ca and P content of this feed formulation, when compared to that of a
high-marine animal meal commercial feed are similar. A slightly higher level of fiber is
shown in the low-marine animal meal formulation, largely due to higher inclusion level of
plant meals. Major differences in ingredients between the low- and high-marine meal
formulations are as follows: decreased inclusion of marine animal meals (15.0 vs .25.0%),
increased level of plant protein meals (66.0 vs. 60.2%), slightly higher overall inclusion of
oils (e.g., reduction in fish oil, but higher soybean and corn oil; 8.2 vs. 7.2%), increased
minerals (e.g., CaCO
3
, CaHPO
4
, NaCl, KCl and MgO; 9.8 vs. 6.6%). A similar levels of
vitamin/mineral premix and binder (0.5% for both) are proposed.

Table 17. Generalized feed formulation for a low-marine animal meal feed for marine penaeid shrimp
1

Ingredients Low-marine animal meal
feed
High-marine animal meal feed
Marine animal meal 15.0 25.0
Plant meal 66.0 60.2
Fish, soybean, corn oil 8.2 7.2
CaCO
3
, CaHPO
4
, NaCl, KCl,
MgO
9.8 6.6
Vitamin-mineral mix 0.5 0.5
Binder 0.5 0.5
1
percentage, as-fed

Table 18. Proximate analysis, Ca and P composition of a low-marine animal meal commercial feed
formulation for marine penaeid shrimp
1

Nutrient Low-marine animal meal feed High-marine animal meal
feed
Crude protein 35.0 35.0
Crude fat 9.0 9.0
Total ash 16.0 16.0
Crude fiber 2.9 2.5

255
Ca 2.4 2.4
P 1.5 1.5
Carbohydrate-calculated 25.2 25.2
1
percentage, as-fed

Future research obviously requires commercial verification of the low fish meal//marine
animal meal-based feed under controlled conditions and in conjunction with a standard
commercial marine penaeid shrimp production feed.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge support from the following institutions for their
assistance during the course of these studies: the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, the USDA Marine Shrimp Farming Program and
USDA-CSREES. CSREES

References

Akiyama D.M., Coelho, S.R., Lawrence, A.L. and E.H. Robinson.(1989) Apparent digestibility of feedstuffs
by the marine shrimp Penaeus vannamei Boone. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 55: 91-98.
Barlow, S.M. (2000) Fish and oil. Global Aquaculture Advocate 3(2);85-88.
Booth, M.A., Allan, G.L. (2001) Replacement of fish meal in diets for Australian silver perch, Bidyanus
bidyanus. Aquaculture 196, 67-85.
Borlongan, I.G., Eusebio, P.S., Welsh, T. (2003) Poetential of feed pea (Pisum sativum) meal a a protein
source in practical diets for milkfish (Chanos chanos Forsskal). Aquaculture 225, 89-98.
Brunson, J .F., Romaire, R.P., Reigh, R.C. (1997) Apparent digestibility of selected
ingredients in diets for white shrimp Penaeus setiferus L. Aquaculture Nutrition 3, 9-16.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (1999) Summary report of contaminant results in fish feed,
fishmeal and fish oil. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/dioxe.shtml.
Chen, H.Y., Leu, Y.T., Roelants, I. (1992) Quantification of arginine requirement of juvenile
marine shrimp Penaeus monodon using microencapsulated arginine. Marine
Biology 114: 229-233.
Chou, R.L, Her, B.Y., Su, M.S., Hwang, G., Wu, Y.H., Chen, H.Y. (2004) Substituting fish meal with
soybean meal in diets of juvenile cobia Rachycentron candum. Aquaculture 229, 325-333.

256
Coman, C.J ., Sarac, H.Z., Fielder, D., Thorne, M. (1996) Evaluation of crystalline amino acids, betaine, and
AMP as food attractants of the giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon). Comparative Biochemical
Physiology 113A, 247-253.
Cowey, C.B.(1990) The present status and problems of world aquaculture with special
reference to fish feeds. Aquaculture in the UK. In: The Current Status of Fish
Nutrition in Aquaculture (ed. by M. Takeda and T. Watanabe)m oo, 13-26, J apan Translation Center, Tokyo.
Cruz-Suarez, L.E., Ricque-Marie, D., Tapia-Salzar, M., McCallum, I.M., Hickling, D., (2001) Assessment of
differenctly processed feed pea (Pisum sativum) meals and canola meal (Brassica sp.) in the diets for
blue shrimp (Litopenaeus stylirostris). Aquaculture 196, 87-104.
Davis, D.A., Arnold, C.R. (2000) Replacement of fish meal in practical diets for the Pacific white shrimp,
Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture 185, 291-298.
Day, R.W., Quinn, G.P. (1989) Comparison of treatments after and analysis of variance in ecology.
Ecological Monographs 59, 433-463.
Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M., Wada, N., Meijer, S. , Ahmed, M. (2002) Fish as food: projections to 2020 under
different scenarios. Markets and Structural Division. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Washington, D.C.
Easton, M.D., Luszniak, D., Von der,. G.E. (2002) Preliminary examination of contaminant loadings in
farmed salmon, wild salmon and commercial salmon feed. Chemosphere 46(7), 1053-1074.
Eusebio, P., Coloso, R.M. (1998) Evaluation of leguminous seed meals and leaf meals as plant protein
sources in diets for juvenile Penaeus indicus. Israeli Journal of Aquaculture-Bamidgeh 40, 47-54.
FAO (2002) World review of fisheries and aquaculture. Part 1. Fisheries resources: trends in production,
utilization and trade. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y7300e/y7300e00.htm
Forster, I., Dominy, W. (2001) Rendered non-marine animal by-products as shrimp feed components Final
Report. Poultry Protein and Fat Council, U.S. Poultry and Egg Association. Tucker, Georgia, USA.
Forster, I., Dominy, W., Obaldo, L., Tacon, A.G.J . (2002) Rendered meat and bone meals as ingredients of
diets for shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931). Aquaculture 219, 655-670.
Fox, J.M., Lawrence, A.L., Li-Chan, E. (1995) Dietary requirement for lysine by juvenile Penaeus vannamei
using intact and free amino acid sources. Aquaculture 131: 279-290.
Glencross, B., Evans, D., Hawkins, W., J ones, B. (2003) Evaluation of dietary inclusion of yellow lupin
(Lupinus luteus) kernel meal on the growth, fed utilization and tissue histolory of rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 235, 411-422.
Gong, H., Lawrence, A.L., J ian, D.H., Castille, F.L., and Gatlin, D.M. 2000. Lipid nutrition of juvenile
Litopenaeus vannamei. I. Dietary cholesterol and de-oiled soy lecithin requirements and their
interaction. Aquaculture 190, 305-324.
Guillaume, J ., Kaushik, S., Bergot, P., Metailler, R. (2001) Nutrition and feeding of fish and crustaceans.
Springer-Verlag, Chichester, UK.

257
Hardy, R.W. (2001) Urban legends and fish nutrition, Part 2. Aquaculture Magazine 27, 57-60.
He, H., Lawrence, , A. L., Liu, R.. (1992). Evaluation of dietary essentiality of fat-soluble vitamins, A, D, E
and K for penaeid shrimp (Penaeus vannamei). Aquaculture 103: 177-185.
Hertrampf, J .W., Piedad-Pascual, F. (2000) Handbook on Ingredients for Aquaculture Feeds. Kulwer
Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Houser, R.H., Akiyama, D.M. (1997) Feed formulation principles. In: Crustacean Nutrition (eds. L.
DAbramo, D.E. Conklin, D.M. Akiyama), pp. 493-519. The World Aquaculture Society, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, USA.
J acobs, M.N., Covaci, A., Schepens, P. (2002) Investigation of selected persistent organic pollutants in
farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), salmon aquaculture feed, and fish oil components of the feed.
Environ Sci Technol. 36(13), 797-805.
Kaushik, S.J ., Coves, D., Dutto, G., Blanc, D. (2004) Almost total replacement of fish meal by plant protein
sources in the diet of the marine teleost, the European seabass, Dicentrarchus labrax. Aquaculture
230, 391-404.
Lim, C. (1996) Substitution of cottonseed meal for marine animal protein in diets for Penaeus vannamei. J.
World Aquacult. Soc. 27, 402-409.
Lim, C., Dominy, W. (1990) Evaluation of soybean meal as a replacement for marine and animal protein in
diets for shrimp Penaeus vannamei. Aquaculture 87, 53-64.
Meilahn, C.W., Davis, D.A., Arnold, C.R. (1996) Effects of commercial fish meal analogue and menhaden
fish meal on growth of red drum fed isonitrogenous diets. The Progressive Fish Culturist 58, 111-
116.
Millamena, O.M., Bautista-Tauerel, M.N., Kanazawa, A. (1996) Methionine requirement of juvenile tiger
shrimp Penaeus monodon Fabricius. Aquaculture 143, 403-410.
Naylor, R.L., Goldburg, R.J , Primavera, J .H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M.C.M., Clay, J ., Folke, C.,
Lubchenco, J ., Mooney, H., Troell, M., 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature
405,
NRC, 1993. Nutrient requirements of fish. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. USA.
Penaflorida, V.D. (1995) Growth and survival of juvenile tiger prawn fed diets where fish meal is partially
replaced with papaya (Carica papaya L.) or camote (Ipomea batatas Lam.) leaf meal. Isr. J.
Aquacult. Bamidgeh 47, 25-33.
Piedad-Pascual, F., Cruz, E.M., Sumalangcay, A. (1995) Supplemental feeding of Penaeus monodon juveniles
with diets containing various levels of defated soybean meal. Aquaculture 89, 183-191.
Pike, I.H. (2000). http://www.fishfacts.com/sfdpriv/news1archive2000/
20000907IPPF.html

258
Pike, I.H. (1999). Health benefits from feeding fish oil and fish meal: The role of long chain omega-3
polyunsaturated fatty acids in animal feeding. International Fish Meal and Oil Manufacturers
Association. Herts, UK.
Pike, I. H. (1998) Fishmeal outlook. Int. Aquafeeds 1, 5-8.
Pontecorvo, G. (2001) Supply side uncertainty and the management of commercial fisheries: Peruvian
anchovetta, an illustration. Marine Policy 25, 169-172.
Samocha T.M, Davis, D.A., Saoud, I.P., DeBault, K. DeBault (2004) Substitution of fish meal by co-extruded
soybean poultry by-product meal in practical diets for the Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus
vannamei. Aquaculture 231, 197-203.
Clesceri, L.S., Greenberg, A.E., Eaton, A.D. (1998). Standard methods for the examination of water and
wastewater. 20
th
Edition, American Public Health Association. Washington, D.C. USA.
Sudaryono, A., Hoxey, M.J ., Kailis, S.G., Evans, L.H. (1995) Investigation of alternative protein sources in
practical diets for juvenile shrimp Penaeus monodon. Aquaculture 134, 313-323.
Sudaryono, A., Tsvetnenko, E., Hutabarat, J , Supriharyono, A. (1999) Lupin ingredients in shrimp (Penaeus
monodon) diets: influence of lupin species and types of meals. Aquaculture 171, 121-133.
Tacon, A. (1998) FAO aquaculture production update. Int. Aquafeeds 2, 13-16.
Tacon, A. (1999) Estimated global aquafeed production and aquaculture in 1997 and projected growth. Int.
Aquafeed 2, 5.
Tacon, A.G.J . and U.C. Barg (1998) Major challenges to feed development for marine and diadromous finfish
and crustacean species. In: Tropical Mariculture (ed. by S.S. de Silva) pp. 171-208. Academic Press,
San Diego.
Tidwell, J .H., Webster, C.D., Yancey, D.H., DAbramo, L.R. (1993) Partial and total replacement of fish
meal with soybean meal and distillers by-products in diets for pond culture of the freshwater prawn
(Macrobrachium rosenbergii). Aquaculture 118, 119-130.
Williams, K. (2004) Fish meal in aquaculture feeds for barramundi. In: Fisheries Research and Development
Report 93/120-04. http://www.frdc.com.au/pub/reports/files/93-120-04.htm
Yang, Y. Xie, S., Lei, W., Zhu, X., Yan, Y. (2003) Effect of replacement of fish meal by meat and bone meal
and poultry by-product meal in diets on the growth and immune response of Macrobrachium
nipponense. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 17, 105-114.

Development of A Low Fish

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of A Low Fish

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of A Low Fish

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fox, J .M., Lawrence, A.L. and Smith, F. 2004.

Development of a Low-fish Meal Feed Formulation for Commercial Production of

You might also like