4.5 Article

Use of biofloc technology during the pre-maturation period of Litopenaeus vannamei males: effect of feeds with different protein levels on the spermatophore and sperm quality

Journal

AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
Volume 46, Issue 8, Pages 1965-1973

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/are.12352

Keywords

Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone; 1931); pre-maturation systems; biofloc technology; food; dietary protein; spermatophore; sperm quality

Categories

Funding

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  2. Ministry of Fishery and Aquaculture (MPA)
  3. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objectives of this study were: (1) Compare two systems for pre-maturation of Litopenaeus vannamei in terms of spermatophore and sperm quality, (2) Compare the effect of feeds with different protein levels on reproductive quality of males reared in a biofloc-dominated system. Animals (36.40 +/- 3.13g) reared under biofloc technology (BFT) were used in the 30-day experiment, which involved four treatments: one in a clear water system (CW) and other three in a BFT system. The BFT treatments were differentiated by feed: mix of fish, squid and crab (BFT+FF) composed of 68.48% dietary protein (DP); broodstock feed (BFT+BF) composed of 52.51% DP; and juvenile feed (BFT+JF) composed of 39.91% DP. Feed in the CW was also the mix of fresh food. Spermatophore and sperm quality were analyzed at the beginning and end of the experiment. Higher normal sperm rate was recorded in the CW compared with the BFT+FF. Among the BFT treatments, the BFT+FF had the lowest normal sperm rate. Thus, the use of BFT for pre-maturation of L. vannamei allowed the reduction in dietary protein levels from 68.48% (BFT+FF) to 39.91% (BFT+JF) and the maintenance of spermatophore and sperm quality compared to the system based on high daily exchange rate.

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