4.7 Article

Insect meals in feeds for juvenile gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata): Effects on growth, blood chemistry, hepatic metabolic enzymes, body composition and nutrient utilization

期刊

AQUACULTURE
卷 561, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738674

关键词

Dietary protein sources; Amino acid catabolism; Lipogenic enzymes; Fatty acid analysis; Amino acid deposition; Plasma biochemistry

资金

  1. European Union
  2. Greek national funds through the National Strategic Reference Framework EPAnEK 2014-2020 operational programme
  3. Special Actions Aquaculture-Industrial Materials-Open innovation in culture [MIS 5045857]
  4. European Union (European Social Fund-ESF) through the Operational Programme Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning in the context of the project Strengthening Human Resources Research Potential via Doctorate Research as implemente [MIS-5000432]
  5. national funds through FCT-Foundation for Science and Technology, Portugal
  6. FCT Portugal [SFRH/BPD/114959/2016]
  7. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/114959/2016] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the possibility of using insect larvae meals to replace fish meal in gilthead sea bream feed. The results showed that the use of Tenebrio molitor larvae resulted in better growth performance, while Hermetia illucens meal had lower dry matter-fat retention.
Alternative and sustainable fish diets are required by modern aquaculture. We investigated the possibility of using insect (Tenebrio molitor TM, Hermetia illucens HI or Musca domestica MD) larvae meals (as 19.5% of the feed formulation) to replace 30% of the in the fish meal (FM) in a gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) feed formulated to contain 65% FM. The feeds were isonitrogenous (ca 57% crude protein of dry matter) isolipidic (ca 17% lipid dry matter) and isoenergetic (ca 22 MJ kg-1 dry matter). To achieve similar energy content among the exper-imental diets, the fish oil inclusion was adjusted. Fish (average initial weight of 29.5 g) were fed up to apparent satiation three times a day, 7 days per week in a 93-days trial. Each diet was assigned to three 500 L tanks with fish density 2 kg m- 3. Five fish from the initial population and two fish per tank were taken for whole-body composition analysis. At the end of the experimental period, nine fish per treatment were taken for the anal-ysis of plasma metabolites and liver enzyme activities. Growth performance, feed intake, feed conversion and somatic indices of fish fed the different insect meal diets were similar to the FM fish. However, among the insect meal fish groups, the feeding with the TM diet resulted in higher specific growth rate compared to the HI diet (1.57% and 1.51% per day, respectively). The whole-body proximate composition was similar among experi-mental groups. Fish fed HI had the lowest fat retention (57.0% compared to 69.3-74.2%). Additionally, the HI group had also lower dry matter and energy retention (30.5% and 36.6%, respectively) compared to the FM group (33.8% and 41.5%, respectively). The whole-body saturated and mono-unsaturated fatty acids content was similar to all the experimental groups. Fish fed diets higher in fish oil (FM and HI) had higher eicosapentaenoic, docosahexaenoic and total omega-3 poly-unsaturated fatty acids content. Whole-body amino acid composition was similar among all experimental groups, while the amino acid retention exhibited significant differences. The plasma metabolites and enzyme activities as well as the hepatic lipogenic enzyme activity were not affected by the different diets. Fish fed the HI diet exhibited higher liver alanine aminotransferase (ALT) activity in com-parison to the TM group. Overall, this study shows that FM can be successfully replaced by TM, HI or MD meals in 30% by weight in the diets of gilthead sea bream. Comparing insect meals, HI meal was inferior in terms of growth performance and dry matter-fat retention compared to TM and MD, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据