alberto j.p. nunes - aquaexpo...
TRANSCRIPT
ALBERTO J .P. NUNESAssociMte Professor, LMbomMrCUFC, BRAZHL
Sept. 27th, 2017Session 3: butrition and feed management
0930 –1000 h
MOST LUCRATHVE AQUACULTURE SECTOR
Source: CAh, Departm
ent ofCisheriesandAquaculture. h
nline
query.0
800
1,600
2,400
3,200
4,000
4,800
8081828384858687888990919293949596979899000102030405060708091011121314
t whDU C TLhb DhU . LEDExpansion in farmed area and production: annual
growth rate of 26%
Emergence and outb reaks of viral diseases:
A nnual growth rate of 6%
C onsolidation of L. vannameiand intensification:
A nnual growth rate of 10%
80% Litopenaeus vannamei
t enaeusmonodon14%
6%hthers
YEA w
Tiger shrimp, t enaeusmonodon
W hitelegt acific shrimp, Litopenaeusvannamei
< 21 d < 24 h < 6 h
< 30 d < 180 d < 24 h
04/10/2017
t onds (earthen or lined) or tanks> 25 g shrimp: > 3 months
t onds (earthen or lined)< 0.5 g (2 g) –12 g (30 g): 90 –180 days
Tanks and wacewaysbauplius –>t L 10: 2 -4 weeks
waceways (or nursery ponds)t L 11–t L 21(2 g): 10 -15 days ((> 30 days)
Hmprove tMil quMlity Mnd
shelf-life
Prom
ote gonMdMl developm
ent Mnd hMtching rMtes
HncreMse resistMnce Mnd tolerMnce to stress
Boost grow
th MndenhMnce feed intMke
Meet E
PA Mnd DH
A nutrient requirem
ents
HncreMse resistMnce Mnd tolerMnce to stress
1
2
4C6 DC6 6C6
t onds (earthen or lined)> 8 g –commercial size (Last 30 days b efore harvest)
1C6 2C6 3C6
Cixed & proprietary
Least-C ost Corm.
Digestibility & supplementation1980́s
1990’s -2005
2005
Exotic ingredientsU nknown growth factors
Shift in farmed speciesM eeting nutrient requirements
weduction in fishmeal use; alternative proteinsCormulation on a digestible basisC rystalline amino acids, novel additives
bU TwLEbT wEv U LwEM EbTS & ChwM U L A TLhb
wA W M A TEwLA L S & CEED
t whC ESSLbD
C U LTU wE SYSTEM & CEED
M A bA DEM EbT
EA At enaeusmonodon
wECEwEbC ELitopenaeus vannamei
wECEwEbC E
A wDLbLbE 1.9 M illamenaetal. (1998) 2.0 Zhouet al. (2012)H LSTLDLbE 0.8
M illamenaetal. (1999)- -
LShLEU C LbE 1.0 1.6* Lie et al. (2014)LEU C LbE 1.7 2.4* Liuet al. (2014)
LYSLbE 2.1 M illamenaetal. (1998) 1.6Cox et al. (2995) Xie
et al. (2012)M ETH LhbLbE 0.9
M illamenaetal. (1996)- -
M ET +C YS 1.3 - -t H EbYL A L A bLbE 1.4 M illamenaetal. (1999) - -TH wEhbLbE 1.4 M illamenaetal. (1997) 1.5* H uaiet al. (2009)TwYt Tht H A b 0.2 M illamenaetal. (1999) - -V A LLbE 1.4 M illamenaetal. (1996) - -*Lowwatersalinity
METHHONHNE CONTENTCOMMERCHAL SHRHMP FEEDS, BRAZHL
*Total of 91 feed samples (32 feed types; 07 commercial b rands). Years 2014-2015.
M et & M et+C ys: greatest coefficient
of variation
C hD H LS A wD TEw A L A TYw V A L M ET C YS LSh LEU CEb LYS C tM EA b 0.792.561.351.981.041.640.700.401.362.581.552.0435.89M Lb. 0.612.081.011.510.821.290.330.281.101.931.211.5927.71M A X. 0.962.911.572.391.201.971.110.521.633.151.752.3840.71
SD 0.090.210.130.200.100.180.180.070.130.320.140.192.74C V 11% 8% 10% 10% 10% 11% 25% 18% 9% 13% 9% 9% 8%
Source: v ueiroz Dalvão A limentos S.A .
M et Dietary Level (% of the diet, DM )
8.70
8.80
8.90
9.00
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.50
0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50
Cina
l .od
y W
eigh
t (g)
Xopt= 1.05% M ETXopt= 0.94% M ET
M ET . whKEb-LLbEy = 8.202 + 1.250xw2= 0.894; t = 0.054; whenx < 0.94y = 9.779 –0.418xw2= 0.984; t = 0.085; whenx > 0.94
M ET v U A DwA TLC Ev U A TLhby = 7.126 + 4.304x –2.052x2
w2= 0.997; t = 0.004
M LbLM U M M A XLM U M
Source: Caçanha, C.; hliveira-beto, A .; M asagounder, K.; bunes, A .J.t. 2017. U npublished.
S U t t hwT: Evonikbutrition& C are Dmb H (Dermany), EvonikDegussado . rasil Ltda. (. razil) and A jinomoto do . rasil Ltda. (. razil)
t hoto: M auricio A lb anoDate: 30/09/2008
LMrge eMrthen ponds: 2 to 1D hMLow yields: < 1 to 3 MTCcropNo or supplementMl MerMtionPhytoplMnkton controlled
SmMll eMrthen or lined ponds: < 0.D hMHigh yields: 12-30 MTCcrop
Strong MerMtion: 20-30 hpChMPhytoplMnkton Mnd bMcteriMl controlled system
15.61
16.05
16.80
16.05
16.61
15.91
15.21
16.11
16.59
16.09
14.87
15.19
15.5115.58
15.73
14.50
15.00
15.50
16.00
16.50
17.00
0.480.620.720.810.94 0.480.620.720.810.94 0.480.620.720.810.94Shrimp Stocking Density/Dietary M ethionine C ontent (% of diet, dry matter b asis)
50 shrimp/m2 75 shrimp/m2 100 shrimp/m2
aA
b A
cAcA
b .
aA
a.
c.
a.
a.
ab .
cCcC
bcC
Cina
l .od
y W
eigh
t (g)
ab A
Lowercase: differences b etween dietary M et at the same stocking densityC A t LTA L : differences b etween stocking densities at the same level of dietary M ET
Shrimp b ody weight reduces with an increase in stocking density
Data: Caçanhaet al, 2016. Aquaculture, 463 (2016) 16–21
Lnitial size
wearingsystem V ariable Diet C t hptimal
M et %DLETM et%C t Source
1.97 g Dreenwater
Stocking density1 t ractical 36% 0.72-0.81 2.00–2.25 Caçanhaet al.
(2016)
1.98 g Dreenwater
W ater exchange regime2 t ractical 36% 0.81-0.94 2.25 –2.61 U npublished
data*
1.82 g Dreenwater
Ceed allowance3
t ractical 32% 0.69-0.79 2.15 –2.47 U npublished data*Stocking
density4
1–50, 75 and 100 shrimp/m2;2–Clow-through (24h at 14.4% a day)and static (once weekly at 10-20%);3-Shrimp were fed under a regular feed allowance and 30% in excess;4–75 and 120 shrimp/m2
*PreliminMry dMtM from collMborMtive studies with Evonik Nutrition & CMre GmbH (GermMny).
EA A M ean±SD
C wU DE t whTELb 18.5 ±2.22A wDLbLbE 0.67 ±0.09H LSTLDLbE 0.17 ±0.03LShLEU C LbE 0.72 ±0.10LEU C LbE 1.16 ±0.16LYSLbE 0.56 ±0.08M ETH LhbLbE 0.21 ±0.03M ET +C YS 0.47 ±0.06t H EbYL A L A bLbE 1.07 ±0.14TH wEhbLbE bATwYt Tht H A b 0.20 ±0.03V A LLbE 0.94 ±0.12n = 11
1. FormulMtions still rely on Mmino Mcids from intMct protein sources to meet nutrient requirements
2. Hndigestible portion of the protein from feedstuffs
3. Excessive levels cMtMbolized Ms energy Ms releMsed into the wMter
1.ShLL DwYLbD A bD LLM LbD2.TwEA TM EbT W LTH t wh. LhTLC S3.LbC wEA SED W A TEw EXC H A bDE4.LLM LTLbD SThC KLbD DEbSLTY
9.48
11.1
7
10.3
9
9.83
10.6
6
11.3
2
10.6
7
10.6
1
10.4
4
9.92
9.83
10.6
0
10.3
9
10.7
0
9.95
10.8
5
9.06
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00
13.00
31 34 37 40
Cina
l Shr
imp
.ody
Wei
ght (
g)
C rude t rotein C ontent (%, as is)
0.6% M et 0.7% M et 0.9% M et 1.0% M et C TL
aA *
bA *bA *bA *a. *a. *
b. *c. * a. *bA *
c. *cC * aC *
bA *bA *bA *
*
M A XLM U M CLbA L . hDY W ELDH T
*PreliminMry dMtM from M collMborMtive study with Evonik Nutrition & CMre GmbH (GermMny).
SHHFTS HN PROTEHN SOURCES
t rocessing waste meals from fisheries and aquaculture (tuna, tilapia, sardine, salmon)
A griculture meals and concentrates (soybean, canola, corn, rice, pea, cottonseed, sunflower)wendered animal b y-
products (poultry by-product meal, feather meal, blood meal, meat and b one meal)
CLSH ShLU . LES
THLAPHA MEAL
HN VHVO DHGESTHBHLHTK
84.2
82,2
69.8
75.4
80.0
66.7
66.7
83.1
84.3
81.9
74.8
79.3
47.3
62.9
70.6
45.8
48.6
81.4
84.4
78.8
61.7
wECStC
CDMt.M
M.M
CEA.LD
TLMC.M
SLMKLM
PRO
TEHN D
HGESTHBHLHTK
tLAbT
ACD Diet (%)
ACD Lngredient (%)
AvUATLC Ab
LMALS
LAbD AbLM
AL
LDEA L< A C C Et TA . LE >U bA C C Et TA LE
70-80% > 80%< 60%
Data: Cavalcanti, 2015. M.Sc. Thesis. Laboma/UCC
60-70%
11.05
10.26
10.47
10.33
9.97 8.93 8.24 7.71
10.13 9.42
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
ea
cda
bb
c
adaae
-7.7%
-5.5%
-6.9%-10.9%
-23.7%
-34.1% -43.3%
-9.0% -17.3%
29.8%
-3.4%
-11.4% -16.1%
-
16.4%
-6.0%
-16.0%-14.8%
-3.0%
% LhSS Lb SH wLM t . hDY W ELDH T% wEDU C TLhb Lb ChwM U L A C hST
CLbA L S H wLM t . hDY W ELDH T (g)( 2.03 ±0.21 g; 70 shrimp/m2; clear water,
72 days of culture) Source: SAbTh
S et al. (2013). M.Sc. Thesis. LA.h
MAw, .razil
S LM S W b . LD M . M CEA M . M TLM Ct M t . M C. M
NEAR HNFRARED REFLECTANCE SPECTROSCOPK (NHRS)
LM t LEM EbT v U LC K EV A L U A TLhb ThhLS Chw LbC hM LbD wA W M A TEwLA L S A bD CLbLSH ED CEEDS
Ceed arrival at farm
Sampling prior to unloading
bLwS analysis
t ermission tounload
Ceed rejection
Ceed storage botify supplier
LEACHHNG OF NUTRHENTS
1 H hU w 2 H hU wS
5 H hU wS 6 H hU wS4 H hU wS
C ommercial pelleted shrimp feed in seawater for 6 hours. W ater salinity = 36 ppt
t hotos: A lberto bunes
LEACHHNG OF NUTRHENTS
LEACHHNG OF NUTRHENTS
Afte
r Hei
nen
(198
0) a
nd M
acki
e (1
982)
LbC LTA bT(leads to initiation
of feeding)
hrientation
CeedingC ontinuation of Ceeding
CeedingC essation
A TTwA C TA bT(promotes feed
detection)
A wwESTA bT(interrupts feed detection)
STLM U L A bT(promotes
continuation of feeding)
A TTwA C TA bTS
wEt EL L A bT (causes feed rejection) S U t wESS A bT
(inhibits initiation of feeding)
DETEwwA bT(stops feeding
activity)
CEEDLbD LbC LTA bTS/STLM U L A bTS
CEEDLbD ECCEC ThwS
t = 0.0184.1% 3.2%
5.0%
2.06% 2.19%2.44%
7.52 g 7.82 g 7.76 g 7.90 g
0_KrSq 0.5%_KrSq 1.0%_KrSq 2.0%_KrSq
USD
750/
MT US
D 76
5/M
T
USD
766/
MT
USD
768/
MT
CLbA L S H wLM t . hDY W ELDH T (g)( 1.59 ±0.46 g; 70 shrimp/m2clear-water, 31-day culture; 35 ±0.9 g L -1
salinity, 7.6 ±0.30 pH , 28.6 ±0.6°C temperature)% DA Lb in performance% LbC wEA SE in formula cost
b
abab
a
ChwM
ULA
Ch
STSource: Sá et al. (2013).
FEED STHMULANTSsquid & krill meMl
04/10/201704/10/2017
1.Suresh et al. (2011):in feeds formulated with 20% poultry meal and no fishmeal, 3% of krill meal significantly improves feed attractab ility, palatab ility and shrimp growth
2.Sá et al. (2013): in a S t C -b ased feed with only 5.0% fish meal, a combination of whole squid meal and krill meal starting at 0.5% enhances shrimp final weight. Dreater effect at 2.0% of the diet.
3.H assan et al. (2016): a 1% dietary inclusion of krill meal in all-plant protein diets increases feed intake, while at 2% accelerates growth, increases yield and reduces CC w
4.Derb y et al. (2016): krill meal increases the feed palatab ility b y prolonging the feeding b out and the amount of feed eaten
a
0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0% Lnclusion of Krill meal (% of diet, as fed)
11.68 g 11.69 g 12.13 g 13.12 g 13.62 g
aa
b
bCLbA L S H wLM t . hDY W ELDH T (g)( 2.84 ±0.2 g; 70 shrimp/m2; 20 clear-water tanks, 72-day culture; 96.4 ±0.9% survival
Source: Sabry et al. 2016. A quaculture butrition, DhL:10.1111/anu.12392
FEED STHMULANTSkrill meMl in Mll plMnt-bMsed feeds
SHRHMP FEEDHNG FACTS
SM A L L SThM A C H3-4% of their . W
wA t LD SThM A C H C LEA wA bC E78% within 2 h
. ulk of feces within 1 h
EA T C hbTLbU hU S LYCull: 2.3% . W /hourEmpty: 4.9% . W /h
CEED W H LLE DLDESTLbD A b EA wLY M EA L
Source: bunes and t arsons (2000, A quaculture, 187: 133-151)
Shrimp are fed from 2 to 6 times a day by manual broadcasting or in feeding trays
bo nocturnal feedingCeed may sit in water
from 4 to as long as 8 hours
Little automationCeeds prone to loss of key
nutrients
A v 1 Systems t ty. Ltd
MULTHPLE-THMES FEEDHNG
M EC H A bLC A L CEEDLbD M A bU A L CEEDLbD
Shrimp t erforman.
Ceeding CrequencyM anual/Ceeding Trays A utomatic/M ultiple2 times 4 times Diurnal Day & bight
Survival (%) 80.4 ±7.7 89.5 ±13.6 92.4 ±4.6 97.1 ±15.1
. W (g) 8.50 ±1.51a 10.55 ±1.82b 11.76 ±1.82c 11.22 ±1.78d
DW D (g) 0.09 ±0.01a 0.12 ±0.01b 0.13 ±0.005b 0.13 ±0.005b
Yield (g/m2)* 579 ±62a 844 ±64b 960 ±99b 989 ±48b
Ceed§ 15.2. ±0.71a 16.5 ±0.69b 16.1 ±0.61ab 15.9 ±0.54ab
CC w 2.28 ±0.35a 1.98 ±0.16b 1.74 ±0.10b 1.56 ±0.12b
*Dained shrimp yield§Total amount of feed delivered (g) per stocked shrimp
MULTHPLE-THMES FEEDHNG
Data/Support: Evonik butrition & Care
DmbH (Derm
any).
TAKE-HOME MESSAGES1. DietMry Mmino Mcid composition more importMnt thMn crude protein
level Ask for dietMry methionine, lysine, Met+Cys levels
2. FormulMtions should Mccount for fMrm production vMriMbles Look Mt tMrgeted stocking density, nMturMl food MvMilMbility, feed
MllowMnce, Mnd wMter quMlity while choosing the best feed for your fMrm
3. Low fishmeMl feeds Mre designed with higher levels of MnimMl by-product Mnd plMnt proteins Apply tools to ensure feed hMve consistent formulMted levels Mnd
MdequMte digestibility4. Shrimp feeds Mre prone to leMching Mnd loss of key nutrients
Feed Ms mMny times Ms possible M dMy Mnd verify thMt feed MttrMctiveness Mnd shrimp foregut fullness
M uchas graciasE-mail: alb [email protected] r