4.6 Review

Application of enzymes as a feed additive in aquaculture

Journal

MARINE LIFE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 208-221

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s42995-022-00128-z

Keywords

Enzymes; Fish feed; Aquaculture; Feed additive; Enzyme microencapsulation

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2019YFD0900201]
  2. National Research Council of Italy (CNR) [0082796/2020]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China (MOST)
  4. CNR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The addition of enzymes in fish feed can enhance the digestibility and absorption of plant- and animal-derived ingredients, leading to increased growth in aquacultural animals. Studies have shown that the use of digestive and non-digestive enzymes can improve the quality of fish feed, but critical steps in the production process should be carefully monitored to ensure enzyme activity is maintained.
Modern aquaculture must be sustainable in terms of energy consumption, raw materials used, and environmental impact, so alternatives are needed to replace fish feed with other raw materials. Enzyme use in the agri-food industry is based on their efficiency, safety, and protection of the environment, which aligns with the requirements of a resource-saving production system. Enzyme supplementation in fish feed can improve digestibility and absorption of both plant- and animal-derived ingredients, increasing the growth parameters of aquacultural animals. Herein we summarized the recent literature that reported the use of digestive enzymes (amylases, lipases, proteases, cellulases, and hemicellulases) and non-digestive enzymes (phytases, glucose oxidase, and lysozyme) in fish feed. In addition, we analyzed how critical steps of the pelleting process, including microencapsulation and immobilization, can interfere with enzyme activity in the final fish feed product.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available