What’s on Tomorrow’s Menu?A Brief Introduction to Some Potential

Fish Feed Materials

Paul Morris

Business Development Manager, Skretting

Novel or just new to us?

Novelty is a question of application because very little is new or unique

What to focus on?

World Crops 2009 (FAO)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Fish

mea

l (IF

FO)

Fisho

il (IF

FO)

Maize

Whe

at

Rice

Pot

atoe

s

Soy

bean

s

Oil pa

lm fr

uit

Bar

ley

Tomat

oes

Ban

anas

App

les

Ora

nges

Gra

pes

Cot

ton

Sor

ghum

Rap

esee

d

Coc

onut

s

Palm

oil

Sun

flower

see

d

Bea

ns, d

ryRye

Gar

lic

Mill

ion tonnes

Availability of fishmeal and oil on a global scale

World Crops 2009 (FAO)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Fish

mea

l (IF

FO)

Fisho

il (IF

FO)

Maize

Whe

at

Rice

Pot

atoe

s

Soy

bean

s

Oil pa

lm fr

uit

Bar

ley

Tomat

oes

Ban

anas

App

les

Ora

nges

Gra

pes

Cot

ton

Sor

ghum

Rap

esee

d

Coc

onut

s

Palm

oil

Sun

flower

see

d

Bea

ns, d

ryRye

Gar

lic

Mill

ion tonnes

Availability of fishmeal and fish oil in perspective

Garlic is 3 times more abundant than fishmeal

Krill – Exceeds emotional baggage limit• Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) - Shrimp-like crustaceans that swarm in dense shoals

• CompositionProtein = approx 60% with digestibility of 80-90%Crude fat variable – 8 to 30% of which 35% is LC n-3 PUFA (EPA > DHA)Krill products have high astaxanthin content (meal ± 100 mg/kg; oil ± 700 mg/kg)

• EU MPL fluorine in krill meal = 3000 mg/kg.EU MPL fluorine in fish feed = 350mg/kg assuming sole source of fluorine in feed was krill at its MPL, maximum inclusion = ± 12% (in reality, potential inclusion is less because fishmeal contributes a significant amount of F)

• Biomass estimates for this species are highly variable (125-725 million tonnes) though total harvest estimated to be 100-200k tonnes p.a.

• The Aker BioMarine component of the fishery certified as sustainable by MSC in June 2010

• Aker harvests krill using a continuous mid-water/pelagic trawl system. This system is guarded by a fine mesh which prevents anything larger than krill from entering the system and is monitored by underwater cameras.

• Product from the Aker Biomarine Antarctic krill fishery is sold predominantly in the US and European markets. Products include Superba oil (food) and Qril meal for aquaculture .

• Even with MSC certification, due to its position as a low trophic level species and origin in the Southern Ocean, Krill remains an emotive subject little / no adoption in UK fish feeds

Cultured alga production dominated by red and brown

seaweeds produced in Asia

Production of cultured algae in 2008

Total = 15.7 million tonnes wet weight

(FAO)

Green

seaweeds

, 0.03

Brown

seaweeds

, 6.63

Misc.

aquatic

plants,

2.54

Red

seaweeds

, 6.59

Continental origin of cultured algae in 2008

Total = 15.7 million tonnes wet weight

(FAO)

Oceana

0.01%

Americas

0.18%

Africa

0.09%

Europe

0.00%

Asia

99.71%

Source: FAO Fishery Statistical Collection

Production of cultured algae in 2008 according to species

0

50

0

1,0

00

1,5

00

2,0

00

2,5

00

3,0

00

3,5

00

4,0

00

4,5

00

5,0

00

Japanese kelp, Laminaria japonica

Aquatic plants (other)

Eucheuma seaweeds, Eucheuma spp

Wakame, Undaria pinnatifida

Zanzibar weed, Eucheuma cottonii

Warty gracilaria, Gracilaria verrucosa

Nori, Porphyra spp

Laver (Nori), Porphyra tenera

Gracilaria seaweeds, Gracilaria spp

Elkhorn sea moss, Kappaphycus alvarezii

Spiny eucheuma, Eucheuma denticulatum

Fusiform sargassum, Sargassum fusiforme

Spirulina (sum), Spirulina spp.

Sum others < 50,000 tonnes

Tonnes / 1000

Source: FAO Fishery Statistical Collection

Proximate composition of common fish feed materials on dry matter basis

ranked according to crude protein content - Note high levels of “space

consuming” ash in seaweeds

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Wh

ea

t g

lute

n

Fis

hm

ea

l, P

eru

via

n

Sp

iru

lin

a (

blu

e g

ree

n)

Ma

ize

glu

ten

So

y P

C

So

ya

, H

iPro

Pra

wn

sh

ell m

ea

l

So

ya

, fu

ll fa

t

Ra

pe

se

ed

me

al

Su

nflo

we

r, H

iPro

Ch

lore

lla

Vp

ure

by-p

rod

uct

Su

nflo

we

r E

xp

DD

GS

Ra

pe

, e

xp

Fie

ld b

ea

ns, d

eh

ulle

d

Po

rph

yra

(re

d)

Pe

as, w

ho

le

Ra

pe

, w

ho

le

Gra

cila

ria

(re

d)

Wh

ea

t fe

ed

Ulv

a (

gre

en

)

Ke

lp m

ea

l

Eu

ch

eu

ma

(re

d)

Wh

ea

t, w

ho

le

Co

nte

nt

in r

aw

ma

teri

al (%

of

dry

ma

tte

r)

Ash DM

CF DM

CP DM

Sources: Hasan 2009; Skretting; Novus

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Cost and value of existing algal products

• With exception of Spirulina, algal / seaweed meals generally have protein contents that only enable them to compete with low / medium level (“2nd division”) protein sources such as sunflower and DDGS and / or fillers like wheat / wheat feed very limited monetary VALUE as feed materials alone

• Algal products would need to be price competitive with vegetable proteins if viewed as sources of protein and fat and high levels of ash consume excess “space” at the lower end of the scale

• Algal products have to have value as sources of micronutrients and / or value added “factors” in order to find a niche in salmonid feeds

• However, on weighted average basis, even with pigment included, the proportion of formula cost attributed to additives (vitamins, minerals and carotenoids) is < 10% of formula cost accounting for < 3% of formula space

• Basic algal products have to have a lot of “bonus” features / generate a lot of marketing value to justify the formulation space they consume

• 15-16 million tonnes of cultured algae is a small amount compared to existing crops incentive to harvest from the wild e.g. a recent application to harvest 20,000 tonnes of Ulva in Galway. Is this sustainable progress?

Land animal by-products (LAPS) Not even starting from the pit lane

• Blood mealHigh protein content (Hb meal > 90%)High, but potentially variable, protein digestibility (still better than many fishmeals)Rich source of histidine (ideal for cost-effective cataract prevention)Anecdotally viewed as a contributor to superior effluent quality in freshwater

• Feather mealVery high protein content (> 80%)Digestibility can be variable (lot to lot) and generally poorer than fishmeal Factors influencing digestibility are known and if composition monitored on a lot by lot basis, can be accommodated in formulation process

• Poultry mealVariable composition but generally protein in range 60 – 70%Composition and digestibility affected by degree of processing and ability to keep feathers separated from other components

• Poultry fatSum SFAs typically in line with SA fish oilsDominant monoene is 18:1n-9 (oleic acid)PUFAs dominated by n-6 fatty acids with negligible n-3 (no LC n-3)

• Before we were able to identify the “unique factors” in fishmeal, LAPs were seen to be capable of replacing more fishmeal than plant materials providing equivalent levels of digestible protein – Concepts like MicroBalance areaddressing this issue

Formulation exercise with land animal products in high specification

feeds for portion-sized rainbow trout

25 2519 17

24

6 24

6

35

15

17

18

51

35

5843

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

25

% F

M

Co

ntr

ol

25

% F

M +

Hb

M +

FE

A +

PO

15

% F

M

Co

ntr

ol

15

% F

M +

Hb

M +

FE

A +

PO

Ra

w m

ate

ria

l in

fe

ed

(%

)

Rest

PO

FEA

HbM

Fish oil

Fishmeal

Exercise carried out to determine likely inclusion level when using LAPS in

a feed based on Horizon FP 45 (market-leading UK trout feed)

Haemoblobin meal (HbM), feather meal (FEA) and poultry oil (PO) made

available to formula with pre- and post-MicroBalance levels of fishmeal

Poultry products – estimated UK production

• Figures for availability of poultry by-products are difficult to acquire some B&H calculations required

• According to the British Poultry Council, 16 million chickens are consumed weekly in the UK 832 million individuals p.a.

• Assuming a slaughter weight of 2.4 kg, 832 million chickens approx 2 million tonnes of whole chicken p.a.

Feathers = 10% of live weight with a 27% recovery when rendered

Offal = 25% of live weight with a recovery of 15% for meal + 15 % for oilBlood = 3% of live weight and has a recovery of 1%

• The UK alone could be producing54k tonnes feather meal75k tonnes poultry meal75k tonnes poultry oil600 tonnes poultry blood

• Hydrolysed feathers, poultry oil and poultry meal are well characterised as fish feed materials and the properties that drive their nutritional value to fish are well understood

Products and by-products from fermentation - bactreria

• Pedigree / history goes back as far as the early 1980's and ICI’s Pruteen - A dehydrated and pelleted protein concentrate obtained by fermentation of methanol by Methylophilus methylotrophus.

• Paracoccus currently used as a carotenoid supply (Panaferd) concept of bacteria added to feed not an issue

• BioProtein (Norferm / StatOil) Biomass derived from Methylococcus spp. using methane as a substrate.Protein content was approx. 74% and digestibility on a par with some fishmeals.Initially very promising results in salmon feed indication incorporation of to 30% of feed.On basis of evidence of suppressed growth (livestock and salmon) and impacts on immunity in terrestrial livestock, EU SCAN subsequently revoked marketing authorisation in 2001.Latterly, Norwegian Committee for Food Safety (2006) set a limit of 6% incorporation in salmon feeds

• Protorsan (Ajinomoto):Dehydrated bacterial cells of Cornybacterium glutamicum melassecolaContains about 70% CP and 10% crude fatProduced as a by-product of production of L-glutamic acid by fermentation using sugar-containing substrates e.g. molasses or starch hydrolysates.

• PL73 (Eurolysine)Contains the protein fraction of the bacterium Brevibacterium lactofermentum and is a by-product of L-lysine production

Products and by-products from fermentation - yeast• A large variety of by-products yeast-based fermentation are available

• Yeasts and yeast products e.g. glucan, nucleotide and carotenoid sources e.g. Phaffia are already common place materials as additives

• Yeasts typically contain 40-50% CP though its digestibility can vary between 50 and 80%

• Large amounts of yeast and / or yeast-containing products will potentially be available as a result of increased levels of ethanol production for use as bio-fuel

• Yeast content of spent substrate will be high due to cell proliferation during fermentation Relatively high protein content in DDGS Protein content of DDGS is too high to be cost effective in ruminant feeds but still

too low to be of high value in monogastric feeds

• Issues for both bacterial and yeast products relate to:Use of GM technology better yields of target product but issues for use in feed

under current non-GM restrictionsResidues of substrate material which may be GMProcess control tools e.g. antibiotics may usedProcesses optimised for target product may periodically compromise nutritional value

in feed

Marine worms – Tide and tested?

• Substantial amount of publicity generated with Nereid worms including N. diversicolor and N. virens being the species of interest

• CompositionApprox 20% dry matterProtein = approx 50% of DMTotal lipid = 15-30% depending on season and feedingLipids are “marine in nature” with predominance of EPA (20:5n-3) and profile can be influenced by feed

• Various published works indicate a high capacity to retain LC n-3 PUFAS though it is difficult to isolate what originates from feed, from the environment (e.g. production by sediment organisms and algae) and whether Nereids synthesise appreciable quantities of LC n-3 PUFAS de novo

• Little or no peer-reviewed literature to demonstrate that ragworm meal is superior to an equivalent amount of fishmeal (anecdotes suggest no better / no poorer on a per unit protein basis) or that small inclusion levels in otherwise fishmeal-free feeds have disproportionate impacts on fish performance

• As a vehicle for waste remediation in polyculture, ragworms represent a source of added value by generating feed material from waste and an opportunity to capture LC n-3 PUFA. To achieve this, marine farms would require a means of harvesting worms requirement to be in shallow water, pump wastes ashore or have means to harvest worms from underneath net pens

• Difficult to isolate true quantities of actual ragworm meal or slurry available.Current guestimate is ± 500 tonnes p.a. for UK

Food by-products and waste

• Reporting is a bit mismatched but, according to WRAP:8.3 million tonnes of household food waste is produced p.a. in the UKOverall waste from food and drink industry is 18.4 mt/y (11.9 mt household / 6.5 mt

supply chain related) opportunities for food recycling into agri- / aquaculture

• Making use of product that otherwise would have gone to landfill represents an opportunity for sustainability credit

• Catering waste – could include excess cooked / prepared food – unlikely to be free from meat or dairy issues with current non-LAP compliance (and traceability?)

• Considerable amount of bakery / confectionary / snack items fail quality control (before despatch) or exceed sell by date in store

• Currently some processors collecting bakery / snack / confection waste and blending + cooking to generate dry meals which are finding their way into feeds for terrestrial agriculture via compound feed producers

• Basic lack of knowledge regarding the suitability of many of the ingredients and / or additives in snacks and confectionary for fish

• Much of the product arrives for processing having been packed or wrapped – mechanised removal does not remove all of packaging before cooking and even after drying + grinding some still remains

• Recovered vegetable oil – oil from fryers that is “spent” – probably of insufficientnutritional quality for use in fish feeds and has baggage attached

Earth worms and insects – “where there’s muck, there’s opportunity”

• Increasing emphasis on composting and recycling of food and agricultural waste opportunities to grow invertebrates as a means of bioremediation

• Processes being developed to grow black soldier and house fly maggots on substrates including pig, poultry and cow manure (with / without fish offal) and palm kernel meal – possibly not the best use of the fish offal or the palm kernel meal but, a good use for manure

• Black soldier fly prepupae contain ± 44% DM and 42% and 35% CP and CF on a dry matter basis respectively with opportunity to increase CP by extracting fat and chitin

• Feeding trials with earth worms and maggots as protein sources in feeds for both cold and warm water fish species go back to the early 1980s and have generally been successful

• Maggots believed to secrete antimicrobial substances reduction of risk of transfer of E. coli and Salmonella

• Projections indicate a potential production of 1.8 million tonnes of dried meal p.a. if maggots were fed on the waste of the USA’s stock of 67 million pigs

• Parting shot – fly actively pupae reduce the pathogen contentof manure – organic crops do not

Implementation

• Technical arguments are largely understood or can be clarified – there are no fundamental barriers to evaluating opportunities

• Scale / availability – The current solutions work because we are dealing with commodities that are available globally and seasonality is manageable from suppliers we (mostly) trust

• Making compound fish feed to, and making it with materials of, the standard expected by all in the value chain (UFAS, FEMAS, GMP+, GlobalGAP ….), dictates a certain scale for participants – Niche suppliers with unusual products in irregular quantities have a lot of checks and balances to overcome

• With the exception of LAPS, few of the “novel” feed materials offer opportunities for cost savings – many rely on generating marketing value that is not always appreciated by all users

• The UK is a market burdened with a lot of baggage related to GM, food safety, welfare and provenance that does not apply or is more readily accepted in many other markets

The biggest barrier to implementation of new approachesis consumer perception

The Values Triangle

Sustainability

Cost Effectiveness

Healthy Eating

Maximise use of SA FO at

penalty of FCR, high

marine index and flexibility

w.r.t. fishery selection

Set rigorous controls on

fishery selection but limit

ability to source high

performing meals / oils

and ability to deliver

highest levels of high n-3

FAs

Cost optimised (not

necessarily best) SGR + FCR

at risk of not meeting most

rigorous sustainability criteria

and reduced ability to deliver

highest n-3 FA level in flesh

CONTRARY TO POPULAR MISCONCEPTION,

THERE IS NO SWEET SPOT

The Final Score

Mrs Trellis (BA, Media Studies) 1 : 0 Sustainable Aquaculture