4.5 Article

Using a selectively bred nongenetically modified soybean meal to replace fishmeal in practical diets for the Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei

Journal

AQUACULTURE NUTRITION
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 1689-1697

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/anu.12803

Keywords

digestibility; feeds; fishmeal; growth; Litopenaeus vannamei; nongenetically modified soybean meal

Categories

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Ocean University of China [201562017]
  2. Marine Economic Innovation and Development Regional Model City Project of Qingdao, China [2016]
  3. Qingdao, China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Growth and digestibility trials were conducted to evaluate the use of nongenetically modified soybean meal (NMSBM) as a supplement in practical shrimp feeds. The apparent digestibility coefficient of dry matter, protein, and energy for the reference diet and NMSBM were 72.87% and 90.13%, 84.83% and 96.61%, and 85.26% and 96.10%, respectively. The 10-week growth trial was conducted to evaluate the replacement of fishmeal by NMSBM at the levels of 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%. The experimental diets were named as D0, D20, D40, D60, D80 and D100, respectively. Results showed that there were no significant differences in the specific growth rate among the D0-D80, and in the feed conversion ratio and body composition among all the treatments. However, the SGR in D100 was significantly lower than that in D0, D20 and D40. The feeding rate in D100 was significantly higher than that in D0, D20 and D60. The challenge test with Vibrio parahaemolyticus after the growth trial showed that no significant differences were found on the cumulative mortalities of shrimp. In conclusion, NMSBM can replace up to 80% fishmeal with no significant negative effects on the growth performance, body composition, immune response and disease resistance of shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available