[go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Investigating Polystyrene Nano-Plastic Effects on Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) Focusing on mRNA Expression: Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and Lipid Metabolism Dynamics
Previous Article in Journal
Are Alexandrium catenella Blooms Spreading Offshore in Southern Chile? An In-Depth Analysis of the First PSP Outbreak in the Oceanic Coast
Previous Article in Special Issue
Functional Study on the BMP Signaling Pathway in the Molting of Scylla paramamosain
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fishes
Volume 9
Issue 9
10.3390/fishes9090341
fishes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Apparent Digestibility Coefficients of Nutrients and Energy from Animal-Origin Proteins for Macrobrachium rosenbergii Juveniles

by
Rosane Lopes Ferreira
1,
Cecília de Souza Valente
2,*,
Lilian Carolina Rosa Silva
3,
Nathã Costa de Sousa
4,
Marlise Teresinha Mauerwerk
5 and
Eduardo Luís Cupertino Ballester
3
1
Graduate Course in Zoology, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba 81531-980, Brazil
2
Cecília de Souza Valente, University of Galway, University Road, H91 TK33 Galway, Ireland
3
Graduate Program in Aquaculture and Sustainable Development, Federal University of Parana, Palotina 85950-000, Brazil
4
Fisheries Engineering, State University of Maranhão, Pinheiro 65200-000, Brazil
5
Shrimp Farming Laboratory, Center for Research and Development in Sustainable Aquaculture, Federal University of Paraná, Maripá 85955-000, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fishes 2024, 9(9), 341; https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes9090341
Submission received: 7 May 2024 / Revised: 25 June 2024 / Accepted: 8 July 2024 / Published: 30 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nutrition, Physiology and Metabolism of Crustaceans)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In prawn farming, the main protein source used in aquafeed formulations is fishmeal. Nevertheless, one estimates that in the coming years, this protein source will no longer be able to meet the demand for the activity. The search for new ingredients is important to meet the increasing demand and minimize environmental impacts, such as the reduction in fish stocks and the eutrophication of aquatic systems. The objective of this study was to determine the apparent digestibility coefficients of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), gross energy (GE), and ether extract (EE) of fishmeal, poultry co-products (viscera and hydrolysed feather), and insect meal (Gromphadorhina portentosa) for giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) juveniles. To determine the apparent digestibility coefficients (ADCs), 90 prawns (average weight, 15 g) were randomly distributed among three experimental units. The reference feed was formulated according to the requirements of the giant river prawn, with 35% crude protein and a gross energy of 3600 kcal kg−1. The test diets comprised 70% of the reference diet and 30% of the respective test ingredients. Prawns were fed three times a day until apparent satiety. Faeces were collected using the indirect siphoning method, twice a day at the same feeding site (at 7:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.). The water parameters were temperature (27 °C), dissolved oxygen (6.65 mg L−1) and pH (7.76). The ACDs of DM, CP, EE, and GE were, respectively, 61.48; 88.28; 99.89 and 88.25 for fishmeal; 76.48; 81.55; 97.29 and 85.13 for poultry viscera meal; 73.82; 75.21; 73.17 and 76.42 for hydrolysed feather meal; and 52.35; 59,48; 87.95 and 67.64 for G. portentosa meal. The values of protein (%) and digestible energy (kcal kg−1) were 55.20 and 3711 for fishmeal; 47.27 and 4285 for poultry viscera’s meal; 65.03 and 4145 for hydrolysed feather meal; and 47.72 and 3616 for G. portentosa meal. These results showed the potential use of insect meals and poultry co-products as ingredients for the diets of M. rosenbergii juveniles, as they present digestible values close to those found for fishmeal, the main raw material used in aquaculture diets.
Keywords:
aquaculture; freshwater prawn; aquatic animal nutrition; alternative feed
Key Contribution: Poultry industry co-products showed digestible values similar to those of fishmeal. Poultry viscera and hydrolysed feather meal, followed by insect meal, are potential substitute ingredients for fishmeal in aquafeed formulations for M. rosenbergii juveniles.

1. Introduction

Crustacean farming is one of the most economically important aquaculture activities as it provides a noble and high-value product, which makes it a profitable activity [1]. It is subdivided into marine and freshwater crustacean farming. The latter has Macrobrachium as the main cultivated genus. Macrobrachium rosenbergii, commonly referred to as the giant river prawn, is considered the most important species of all crustaceans of freshwater production. This tropical prawn stands out among relevant species in aquaculture due to its remarkable biological and zootechnical advantages, such as high fertility, adaptability to a wide range of environmental conditions, tolerance to varying water quality parameters, and rapid growth rate [2]. Currently, the main producers of this tropical prawn are the Americas (Mexico, Peru, USA) and Asia (China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam) [3]. It attracts farmers not only due to its high market demand but also its potential for sustainable aquaculture development.
For prawn farming to be successful, as well as any other aquaculture endeavour, it is essential to use a nutrient-rich balanced diet that delivers the nutrient requirement of the farmed species [4]. Currently, fishmeal is the primary protein source used in commercial crustacean feeds because of its superior profile of essential amino acids and unsaturated fatty acids, which are crucial for fulfilling nutritional requirements and promoting a satisfactory performance in culture systems [4]. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that, in the upcoming years, global fish stocks will decline, thereby no longer supporting the increasing global demand for the production of high-quality fishmeal with a high amino acid profile [5]. In recent years, lots of research has studied insect meals and co-products from the poultry sector to identify the potential use of these ingredients as alternatives for fishmeal in aquafeed, thereby minimising the pressure on fish stocks and reducing production costs [6,7].
Among the co-products of the poultry industry with the potential to replace fishmeal in prawn diets, the following stand out: viscera meal, which has crude protein levels between 55 and 70% [8], and feather meal, which has a high protein content (80–90% crude protein), although this is mostly in the form of keratin [9]. Feather keratin is characterised by low solubility and a high resistance to enzymatic action [10]. Therefore, to improve the nutritional quality of this protein by increasing the biological properties of its peptides, the feather meal should be subjected to the hydrolysis process, ultimately being called hydrolysed feather meal [9,11].
Other potential products, such as insect meal, are being investigated as partial or complete substitutes for fishmeal [12]. When used in aquafeed, insect meal presents a satisfactory nutritional profile and adequate protein digestibility after the drying process [6,13]. Insect meal has also been proven to provide a high content of essential amino acids and adequate palatability [14]. The Madagascar hissing cockroach, Gromphadorhina portentosa, is currently one of the main insects studied for this purpose [11]. The composition of the meal reaches protein levels above 60% [14]; however, these values may vary depending on the life stage of the insect (adult or larval) used as raw material in the meal formulation process [15].
For an ingredient to be deemed a substitute for another, it must meet the nutritional requirements of the cultivated organisms, and its nutritional value must be equal to or greater than the ingredient it is replacing [16]. Additionally, it should be inexpensive and easy to obtain, and, most importantly, digestible by the animal being fed, avoiding losses to the nutritional quality of the diet [10]. Hence, studies on the digestibility of substitutes are essential and serve as a method for assessing the biological value of substitutes, thereby estimating the availability of the nutrients contained within them and, consequently, their potential for inclusion in commercial aquafeeds [17].
From this perspective, the present work aimed to determine and compare the apparent digestibility coefficients of dry matter, crude protein, ether extract, and gross energy in fishmeal, poultry viscera meal, hydrolysed feather meal, and G. portentosa meal, and their ability to be used in diets for juveniles of M. rosenbergii.

2. Materials and Method

2.1. Experimental Design

The experiment was conducted at the Fish Production and Reproduction Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Brazil. A total of 90 juveniles of M. rosenbergii with an average weight of 15 g were randomly distributed among three circular tanks (useful vol. 1000 L), with a total of 30 prawns per experimental unit (n = 3). The experiment lasted five months. That is, during each month, the group of 90 animals was acclimated to a specific test diet (fishmeal, poultry viscera meal, hydrolysed feather meal, or Gromphadorhina portentosa meal); 50 g of faeces per experimental unit was collected during each period, totalling 150 g of faeces per experimental diet. The chosen methodology was based on that presented by Akiyama, Coelho [18] and Cousin, Cuzon [19]. All animals were healthy and in the intermoult period. The tested ingredients had a similar origin, i.e., all ingredients originated from animal by-products; no disruption of gut health was expected. Similarly, M. rosenbergii juveniles were expected to have a stable intestinal morphology and present the same nutritional requirements, with no significant differences in size throughout the feeding time.
The photoperiod was a 12 h light/12 h dark cycle, and the water temperature was kept at 27 °C. The prawns were acclimated to each test diet for five days before excreta collection. The animals were fed three times daily (7:50 a.m., 12:50 p.m., and 6:50 p.m.) until apparent satiety for 20 min. A short feeding time was used so that the animals in all experimental units were fed, and non-eaten feed was removed from the tanks before subsequent faecal collection [20]. After this interval, the experimental units were siphoned, and any leftover food was removed.
Faecal collection was performed using the indirect siphoning method (at 7:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.) according to González-Peña and Anderson [21]. This method was chosen because it is the most practical and common method used to perform studies on crustacean digestibility [22]. Faeces were collected from the same tank, before providing the food and cleaning the experimental units. The collected faecal samples were stored at −6 °C until further analysis.
The physical and chemical water parameters, including temperature (°C) and dissolved oxygen (mg L−1), were monitored daily in the morning. The water pH, hardness, alkalinity, and concentrations of nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia were measured once a week, according to AOAC [23], at the Water Quality and Limnology Laboratory at UFPR, Brazil. Hardness was maintained by adding dolomite limestone (0.5 g L−1) once a week to keep it within a range of 20 mg L −1, as recommended by Arana [24].

2.2. Experimental Diets

The diets were formulated, according to D’Abramo and Conklin [25], to contain 35% crude protein and a gross energy of 3600 kcal kg−1. All diets contained 0.1% chromium oxide (Cr2O3) added as an inert marker. The indirect diet digestibility assessment method, with the use of an indigestible marker (i.e., Cr2O3), is the most commonly used for the study of ingredient digestibility in crustaceans [22]. Each test diet consisted of 70% of the reference diet and 30% of the test ingredient, i.e., fishmeal, poultry viscera meal, hydrolysed feather meal, or Gromphadorhina portentosa meal (Table 1).

2.3. Bromatological Analyses

Bromatological analyses were carried out at the Animal Nutrition Laboratory at UFPR, Palotina Sector, Brazil, according to AOAC [23]. The concentration of Cr2O3 was determined at the Soil Laboratory, State University of Maringá, Brazil, by atomic absorption spectrophotometry, using the methodology of Kimura and Miller [26]. Amino acid analysis was carried out at the CBO laboratory, using the methodologies of White, Hart [27] and Hagen, and Frost [28]. The formulas proposed by Mukhopadhyay and Ray [29] were used to determine the apparent digestibility coefficients (ADC), as follows:
Apparent   total   digestibility   of   reference   and   test   diet   % = 100 − 100   %   Cr 2 O 2   in   diet %   Cr 2 O 2   in   faeces
Apparent   dry   matter   digestibility   of   the   ingredient   % = 100 %   test   ingredient   ADTD − %   RD 100 ×   ADRD
Apparent   nutrient   digestibility   of   the   ingredient   % = 100 %   test   ingredient   NDTD − %   RD 100 ×   NDRD
ADTD: Apparent total digestibility of test diet
ADRD: Apparent total digestibility of reference diet
Cr2O2: Chromium oxide (inert marker)
NDTD: Nutrient digestibility of test diet
NDRD: Nutrient digestibility of reference diet
RD: Reference diet

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were verified for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test and for homogeneity using the Levene test. After satisfying these two prerequisites, the data were subjected to analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA, α = 0.05), followed by the Tukey post hoc test (α = 0.05) to compare the means of the experimental groups.

3. Results

3.1. Water Parameters

All physical and chemical parameters of the water were within the recommended range for M. rosenbergii [30] (Table 2).

3.2. Chemical and Bromatological Composition

The average values for the chemical and amino acid composition of the ingredients and experimental diets are shown in Table 3. The hydrolysed feather meal and its experimental diet presented a high protein content, although it was not significantly different from the other ingredients or diets. Regarding the composition of essential amino acids, as expected, the diets showed the same composition found in the ingredients. Hydrolysed feather meal presented high values for the amino acids threonine, valine, isoleucine, leucine, and phenylalanine. Fishmeal had high values for the limiting amino acids lysine and methionine.

3.3. Apparent Digestibility Coefficients (ADCs)

The apparent digestibility coefficients of the nutrients and amino acids, as well as their average values, are listed in Table 4. Statistically, a difference was observed in the ADC of crude protein, with fishmeal and poultry viscera presenting higher values compared to G. portentosa meal. Meanwhile, hydrolysed feather meal presented an ADC of crude protein statistically similar to all other ingredients. Regarding the ADCs of essential amino acids, the fishmeal had an adequate ADC for lysine and leucine. Poultry viscera meal displayed an adequate ADC for methionine and isoleucine, the most limiting amino acids in crustaceans [31].
The average values of amino acids and digestible nutrients in the ingredients (Table 4) suggest that the hydrolysed feather meal did not statistically present the highest ADC for crude protein. It nevertheless exhibited high levels of digestible protein and essential amino acids (inc. threonine, valine, isoleucine, leucine, and phenylalanine).

4. Discussion

The analysis of the digestibility coefficient of aquafeed ingredients provides an accurate characterization of the ingredients used in a given diet. This assessment allows the proposal of potential alternative ingredients to be used in aquafeed, as a replacement for traditional ones. In such a case, examining the amino acid content is also crucial to ensure that the proposed substitute provides sufficient levels of essential amino acids to the species to be fed. The present study assessed the apparent digestibility coefficients of poultry viscera meal, hydrolysed feather meal, and G. portentosa meal and their applicability to substitute fishmeal on diets for M. rosenbergii juveniles.
A large standard deviation was observed for the alkalinity and hardness water parameters. Of note, all water parameters were equivalent in all experimental units; that is, they were not a variable that could have influenced the observed results. The alkalinity values observed in the present study were under the recommended highest limit for the production of M. rosenbergii (<200 mg L−1 CaCO3), and low-alkalinity water can be used for its production (<100 mg L−1 CaCO3) [32]. Similarly, although very low hardness levels (<20 mg L−1 CaCO3) are not an optimum condition for producing M. rosenbergii, higher hardness levels (>200 mg L−1 CaCO3) are considerably more detrimental to M. rosenbergii growth [33]. In the present study, dolomite limestone was added to the water once a week to ensure that the hardness was lower than 20 mg L−1 CaCO3. To identify and prevent significant variations in the water parameters, this study recommends the measurement of water parameters such as hardness and alkalinity twice a week. Lastly, although fluctuations in phytoplankton and zooplankton populations might be hypothesized due to their direct relationship with water hardness and alkalinity [33,34], the present study did not investigate plankton productivity, and this would not have influenced the results of the digestibility study.
The chemical composition of the G. portentosa meal obtained in this study was equivalent to that reported by Fontes and de Oliveira [15], i.e., dry matter (94.60%) and crude protein (69.94%). Similarly, the hydrolysed feather (dry matter 87.2–93.2%; crude protein 82.4–87.6%) and poultry viscera (dry matter 94.0%; crude protein 69.2%) meals presented values close to those described by Bureau and Harris [35]. The chemical composition of the fishmeal found in this study was similar to the findings of Oujifard and Seyfabadi [36], i.e., dry matter (92.7%) and crude protein (61.5%).
Regarding the amino acid composition, the hydrolysed feather meal contained higher amounts of digestible essential amino acids in its formulation, including threonine, valine, isoleucine, leucine, and phenylalanine. The hydrolysed feather meal ingredient and its corresponding experimental diet presented the highest protein content compared to the other ingredients and their respective diets. Regarding the composition of essential amino acids, the diets exhibited a similar pattern to that observed for the ingredients. Among the tested diets, the hydrolysed feather meal displayed the highest values for five amino acids: threonine, valine, isoleucine, leucine, and phenylalanine. Fishmeal had the highest levels of the amino acids lysine and methionine, which are crucial for different metabolic processes [31].
Notwithstanding, the poultry viscera meal had the closest biological resemblance to fishmeal in terms of the quantity of limiting essential amino acids, specifically methionine and lysine. Similarly, Suresh and Kumaraguru vasagam [37] observed that poultry by-products presented a slightly lower biochemical profile when compared to anchovy fishmeal. Also, recent studies demonstrated that poultry by-products can replace up to 75% of fishmeal in the diet of M. rosenbergii juvenile [38] and swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkia) [39], without detrimental effects on the animals’ performance, intestinal health, and immunological status. Likewise, poultry by-products are suggested to have an abundance of potent antioxidants such as carnosine and anserine [40]. Fishmeal is the main ingredient used in aquaculture formulations. These amino acids, which are not synthesized by the body, are essential for the diet of aquatic animals, particularly fish and crustaceans. Supplementation at concentrations lower than those required by the species can disrupt their full potential performance. Essential amino acids play a significant role in protein synthesis, exerting a direct effect on the growth and feeding efficacy of supplemented animals [30].
The apparent digestibility coefficients of the ingredients used in feed for M. rosenbergii in this study were in line with those reported in the literature. The ADCs for hydrolysed feather meal were similar to those obtained for rainbow trout [41], i.e., ADCDM (80.1%), ADCCP (76.6%) and ADCGE (76.9%). Meanwhile, those of G. portentosa meal were comparable to those reported for the Nile tilapia fingerlings [15], i.e., ADCDM (48.2%), ADCCP (61.6%) and ADCGE (47.4%). The ADCs of poultry viscera and fish meals were equivalent to those observed for Sparus aurata (ADCDM 87.02%; ADCCP 89.97%) and Oncorhynchus mykiss (ADCDM 76%; ADCCP 87%; ADCGE 77%) [35,42]. The ADCs of corn meal (ADCDM 62.30%; ADCCP 87.40%; ADCGE 62.43%) and rice bran (ADCDM 59.67%; ADCCP 83.84%; ADCGE 66.41%) for surubim fish (Pseudoplatystoma corruscans) were also comparable to those obtained in the present study [43].
The G. portentosa meal had the lowest average values of ADCs. The crude protein ADC values were significantly lower than those of the other evaluated ingredients. The reduction in the digestibility of crude protein may have been caused by chitin [13]. Found in the carapace of insects, chitin is a protein that binds to proteins and lipids, thereby limiting the absorption of these nutrients by animals and resulting in decreased ADCs, as observed in the present study. It also contained the lowest levels of digestible essential amino acids. This may be due to the degree of protein sclerotization and the quantity of cuticular amino acids associated with chitin. This can impact the ADCs of amino acids [44]. It is noteworthy that this does not prevent insect meal from being used in aquafeed; it can be used partially or even go through processes of reduction or the complete elimination of chitin. The latter can be achieved using chitinolytic bacteria or chemical and enzymatic methods such as chitooligosaccharides (COS), acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc), or chitosan [42]. For instance, when used as a substitute for fishmeal in the diet of juvenile Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), G. portentosa meal provided sufficient levels of dietary nitrogen, and maintained adequate fish growth performance and survival [45].
The G. portentosa meal had the lowest ADC values for dry matter, ether extract, and gross energy. Thus, this ingredient is suggested to be the least suitable replacement for fishmeal. Nevertheless, the ADC values were statistically similar to those of the other ingredients analysed, including fish, poultry viscera, and hydrolysed feather meals. This suggests that the use of nutrients by M. rosenbergii may have been similar among the tested diets. In other farmed animal species, including fish, pig, and poultry, insect meal has been shown to positively modulate the gut microbiota, boost immunological responses, and increase antimicrobial activity [46]. It is noteworthy that, although the ADCs found in this study for G. portentosa meal may be considered low, they were higher than those found in Nile tilapia [15], i.e., ADCDM (48.2%), ADCCP (61.6%) and ADCGE (47.4%). The higher ADC of giant river prawns may be related to the presence of chitinase in their hepatopancreas [47]. This enzyme is responsible for digesting chitin, and its production is related to the eating habits of the species, which comprises mostly detritivores [48].
Fish and poultry viscera meals had the highest average ADC values for crude protein among the ingredients evaluated. This was the only nutrient that showed a statistically significant difference. These values align with those reported for sea bream (Sparus aurata; ADCCP 89%) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss; ADCCP 76%) [35,42]. The effective utilization of crude protein in these analysed ingredients, particularly fishmeal, can be attributed to their essential amino acids profile, as well as their composition of polyunsaturated essential fatty acids (PUFAs) such as eicosapentaenoic (20:5n-3, EPA) and docosahexaenoic (22:6n-3, DHA), which are required for animal growth in captivity [27]. Thus, despite fishmeal being a preferred protein source in aquaculture due to its nutritional benefits, its high cost and limited availability [49] have led to a search for new substitutes.
Based on the statistical results, poultry viscera meal may be a potential substitute for fishmeal, as they showed significantly similar ADCs. This suggests that M. rosenbergii utilizes the crude protein from both ingredients in the same way. In addition, hydrolysed feather meal can also be considered a potential fishmeal substitute. Notably, this ingredient presented the highest concentrations of the following essential amino acids in its composition: threonine, valine, isoleucine, leucine and phenylalanine; this is a characteristic that directly influences the biological value of its protein and consequently improves this nutrient utilization by prawns [50]. These findings demonstrate the nutritional efficacy of using poultry industry co-products as alternatives to fishmeal. Moreover, incorporating these ingredients in aquafeed can offer numerous environmental benefits by reducing the environmental impact of poultry farming waste and alleviating pressure on natural stocks of fishmeal-producing species.
Overall, determining digestibility is a fundamental tool in evaluating the quality of the ingredient or diet. By analysing the ADC values of the ingredients, one can establish the average values of digestible nutrients and energy, thereby determining the non-digestible fraction of the diet. This is essential to identify its potential impact, since this fraction contributes to the waste accumulated in the aquatic environment [51]. The present study demonstrated, based on the average ADCs of amino acids, nutrients, and energy, that the poultry viscera and hydrolysed feather meals presented average values close to those of fishmeal, suggesting that they are biologically similar. This finding supports their potential use as substitute ingredients for fishmeal in aquafeed formulations. Their use would reduce operational costs, alleviate pressure on natural fishing stocks, and decrease the waste from poultry industries in the environment while redirecting those ingredients towards a specific destination for animal feed.

5. Conclusions

All the ingredients analysed presented good ADCs and high digestible nutrient and energy values for M. rosenbergii. Notwithstanding, the statistical analysis and amino acid profile indicate that poultry industry co-products are the most suitable substitutes for fishmeal among the tested ones. These ingredients have digestible values similar to those of the main protein source currently used in aquafeed. The ADC analyses are essential when considering the use of potential new aquafeed ingredients, as they ensure a satisfactory similarity between the amount of nutrients required and the ones indeed digested by the animal. Complementary studies (inc. growth performance, transcription of health-related genes, gut modulation) would corroborate the efficiency and long-term effects of dietary poultry industry co-products on prawn performance and health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.L.F., L.C.R.S. and E.L.C.B.; Methodology, R.L.F., N.C.d.S. and M.T.M.; Formal analysis, R.L.F.; Investigation, R.L.F. and E.L.C.B.; Resources, E.L.C.B.; Writing—original draft, R.L.F., C.d.S.V., L.C.R.S., N.C.d.S. and M.T.M.; Writing—review and editing, R.L.F., C.d.S.V., L.C.R.S., N.C.d.S., M.T.M. and E.L.C.B.; Supervision, E.L.C.B.; Project administration, E.L.C.B.; Funding acquisition, E.L.C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil, under grant number PQ 311456/2020-0, to Prof Dr Eduardo Luis Cupertino Ballester.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the study being restricted to the use of decapod species; in Brazil, the current animal protective legislation (Law № 11,794, 2008, Brazil) does not require the approval of studies using decapod crustacean by an Ethics Committee.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ferreira Ribeiro, L.; Macedo de Souza, M.; Barros, F.; Hatje, V. Desafios da carcinicultura: Aspectos legais, impactos ambientais e alternativas mitigadoras. Rev. De Gestão Costeira Integr.—J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 2014, 14, 365–383. [Google Scholar]
  2. Rasid, R.; Brown, J.H.; Pratoomyot, J.; Monroig, O.; Shinn, A.P. Growth performance, nutrient utilisation and body composition of Macrobrachium rosenbergii fed graded levels of phytic acid. Aquaculture 2017, 479, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. New, M.B. Macrobrachium rosenbergii. In Cultured Aquatic Species Fact Sheets; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  4. Scopel, B.R.; Schveitzer, R.; Seiffert, W.Q.; Pierri, V.; Arantes, R.d.F.; Vieira, F.d.N.; Vinatea, L.A. Substituição da farinha de peixe em dietas para camarões marinhos cultivados em sistema bioflocos. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 2011, 46, 928–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tesser, M.; Cardozo, A.; Camaño, H.; Wasielesky, W. Substituição da farinha e do óleo de peixe por farinha e óleo de origem vegetal em rações utilizadas na fase de engorda do camarão branco do Pacífico Litopenaeus vannamei, em sistemas de bioflocos. Arq. Bras. De Med. Veterinária E Zootec. 2019, 71, 703–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Freccia, A.; Meurer, E.; Jerônimo, G.; Emerenciano, M. Farinha de inseto em dietas de alevinos de tilápia. Arch. De Zootec. 2016, 65, 541–547. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolton, C.M.; Muller, N.; Hyland, J.; Johnson, M.P.; Souza Valente, C.; Davies, S.J.; Wan, A.H.L. Black soldier fly larval meal with exogenous protease in diets for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) production meeting consumer quality. J. Agric. Food Res. 2021, 6, 100232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pezzato, L.E.; Miranda, E.C.d.; Barros, M.M.; Pinto, L.G.Q.; Furuya, W.M.; Pezzato, A.C. Digestibilidade aparente de ingredientes pela tilápia do Nilo (Oreochromis niloticus). Rev. Bras. De Zootec. 2002, 31, 1595–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. da Cunha, I.C.; Brandelli, A.; Braga, A.R.C.; Sala, L.; Kalil, S.J. Feather Meal as a Source of Peptides with Antioxidant Activity from Enzymatic Hydrolysis. Waste Biomass Valorization 2023, 14, 421–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Graeff, Á.; Mondardo, M. Substituição da farinha de peixes pela farinha de penas hidrolizada na alimentação da carpa comum (Cyprinus carpio L.) na fase de recria/the substitution of fish meal for hidrolized feather meal in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) feeds during the spawnin. Ceres 2006, 53, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ghaly, A.E.; Alkoaik, F. The yellow mealworm as a novel source of protein. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2009, 4, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2018; Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries Department: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  13. Henry, M.; Gasco, L.; Piccolo, G.; Fountoulaki, E. Review on the use of insects in the diet of farmed fish: Past and future. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2015, 203, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Makkar, H.P.S.; Tran, G.; Heuzé, V.; Ankers, P. State-of-the-art on use of insects as animal feed. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014, 197, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fontes, T.V.; de Oliveira, K.R.B.; Gomes Almeida, I.L.; Maria Orlando, T.; Rodrigues, P.B.; Costa, D.V.d.; Rosa, P.V.e. Digestibility of insect meals for Nile tilapia fingerlings. Animals 2019, 9, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Silva, J.R.d.; Netto, D.P.; Scussel, V.M. Grãos secos de destilaria com solúveis, aplicação em alimentos e segurança–uma revisão. Pubvet 2016, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Booth, M.A.; Allan, G.L.; Frances, J.; Parkinson, S. Replacement of fish meal in diets for Australian silver perch, Bidyanus bidyanus: IV. Effects of dehulling and protein concentration on digestibility of grain legumes. Aquaculture 2001, 196, 67–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Akiyama, D.; Coelho, S.; Lawrence, A.; Robinson, E. Apparent digestibility of feedstuffs by the marine shrimp Penaeus vannamei BOONE. Fish. Sci. 1989, 55, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cousin, M.; Cuzon, G.; Guillaume, J. Digestibility of starch in Penaeus vannamei: In vivo and in vitro study on eight samples of various origin. Aquaculture 1996, 140, 361–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Smith, D.M.; Tabrett, S.J. Accurate measurement of in vivo digestibility of shrimp feeds. Aquaculture 2004, 232, 563–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. González-Peña, M.d.C.; Anderson, A.J.; Smith, D.M.; Moreira, G.S. Effect of dietary cellulose on digestion in the prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Aquaculture 2002, 211, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Glencross, B.; Smith, D. Raw material evaluation strategies for shrimp diets: Optimizing raw material sustainability. In The Shrimp Book; Nottingham University Press: Nottingham, UK, 2014; pp. 455–477. [Google Scholar]
  23. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International; A.O.A. Chemist, Ed.; AOAC International: Gaitherburg, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  24. Arana, L.A.V. Qualidade da Água em Aquicultura: Princípios e Práticas; Ed. da UFSC: Florianópolis, Brazil, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  25. D’Abramo, L.R.; Conklin, D.E.; Akiyama, D. Crustacean Nutrition; World Aquaculture Society: Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kimura, F.T.; Miller, V. Chromic oxide measurement, improved determination of chromic oxide in cow feed and feces. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1957, 5, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. White, J.; Hart, R.; Fry, J. An evaluation of the Waters Pico-Tag system for the amino-acid analysis of food materials. J. Anal. Methods Chem. 1986, 8, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hagen, S.R.; Frost, B.; Augustin, J. Precolumn phenylisothiocyanate derivatization and liquid chromatography of amino acids in food. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 1989, 72, 912–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mukhopadhyay, N.; Ray, A. The apparent total and nutrient digestibility of sal seed (Shorea robusta) meal in rohu, Labeo rohita (Hamilton), fingerlings. Aquac. Res. 1997, 28, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. New, M.B. Farming Freshwater Prawns: A Manual for the Culture of the Giant River Prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii); Food & Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  31. National Research Council (NRC). Nutrient Requirements of Fish and Shrimp; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; p. 350+IV. ISBN 978-0-309-16338-5. [Google Scholar]
  32. González-Vera, C.; Brown, J.H. Effects of alkalinity and total hardness on growth and survival of postlarvae freshwater prawns, Macrobrachium rosenbergii (De Man 1879). Aquaculture 2017, 473, 521–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vasquez, O.E.; Rouse, D.B.; Rogers, W.A. Growth response of Macrobrachium rosenbergii to different levels of hardness. J. World Aquac. Soc. 1989, 20, 90–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shil, J.; Ghosh, A.K.; Rahaman, S.M.B. Abundance and diversity of zooplankton in semi intensive prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) farm. SpringerPlus 2013, 2, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bureau, D.P.; Harris, A.M.; Cho, C.Y. Apparent digestibility of rendered animal protein ingredients for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 1999, 180, 345–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Oujifard, A.; Seyfabadi, J.; Abedian Kenari, A.; Rezaei, M. Growth and apparent digestibility of nutrients, fatty acids and amino acids in Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, fed diets with rice protein concentrate as total and partial replacement of fish meal. Aquaculture 2012, 342–343, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Suresh, A.V.; Kumaraguru vasagam, K.P.; Nates, S. Attractability and palatability of protein ingredients of aquatic and terrestrial animal origin, and their practical value for blue shrimp, Litopenaeus stylirostris fed diets formulated with high levels of poultry byproduct meal. Aquaculture 2011, 319, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Boateng, A.G.; Zhao, J.; Zhao, J.; Xu, H.; Li, H.; Zhao, M.; Xu, Q.; Liu, C. Effects of Replacement of Fish Meal with Poultry By-Product Meal (PBM) on Growth Performance, Digestive Enzyme, and Immunity of Giant River Prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii). Aquac. Res. 2023, 2023, 7500596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yang, M.; Guo, X.; Chen, T.; Li, P.; Xiao, T.; Dai, Z.; Hu, Y. Effect of dietary replacement of fish meal by poultry by-product meal on the growth performance, immunity, and intestinal health of juvenile red swamp crayfish, procambarus clarkia. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2022, 131, 381–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, P.; Wu, G. Composition of amino acids and related nitrogenous nutrients in feedstuffs for animal diets. Amino Acids 2020, 52, 523–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Cheng, Z.; Hardy, R.; Huige, N. Apparent digestibility coefficients of nutrients in brewer’s and rendered animal by-products for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum)). Aquac. Res. 2004, 35, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Piccolo, G.; Iaconisi, V.; Marono, S.; Gasco, L.; Loponte, R.; Nizza, S.; Bovera, F.; Parisi, G. Effect of Tenebrio molitor larvae meal on growth performance, in vivo nutrients digestibility, somatic and marketable indexes of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata). Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 226, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Teixeira, E.d.A.; Saliba, E.d.O.S.; Euler, A.C.C.; Faria, P.M.C.d.; Crepaldi, D.V.; Ribeiro, L.P. Coeficientes de digestibilidade aparente de alimentos energéticos para juvenis de surubim. Rev. Bras. De Zootec. 2010, 39, 1180–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Finke, M.D. Estimate of chitin in raw whole insects. Zoo Biol. 2007, 26, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. García-Pérez, O.D.; Sanchez-Casas, R.M.; Moreno-Degollado, G.; Munguía, C.A.G.; Villarreal-Cavazos, D.; Gamboa-Delgado, J. Substitution of fish meal with Madagascar cockroach (Gromphadorhina portentosa) meal in diets for juvenile Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus): Effects on growth, nutrient assimilation, and nitrogen turnover rates. Fish Physiol. Biochem. 2022, 48, 1587–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lee, J.H.; Kim, T.K.; Cha, J.Y.; Jang, H.W.; Yong, H.I.; Choi, Y.S. How to develop strategies to use insects as animal feed: Digestibility, functionality, safety, and regulation. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2022, 64, 409–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mitra, G.; Chattopadhyay, D.; Mukhopadhyay, P.K.M. Nutrition and feeding in freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) farming. Aqua Feed. Formul. Beyond 2005, 2, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
  48. Almeida Neto, M.E.d. Relação entre Padrão Comportamental, Estágios do Ciclo de Muda e Atividade de Enzimas Digestivas Proteolíticas em Juvenis do Camarão Marinho Litopenaeus vannamei (Crustacea: Penaeidae); Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte: Natal, Brazil, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hardy, R. Utilization of plant proteins in fish diets: Effects of global demand and supplies of fishmeal. Aquac. Res. 2010, 41, 770–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Allan, G.L.; Parkinson, S.; Booth, M.A.; Stone, D.A.J.; Rowland, S.J.; Frances, J.; Warner-Smith, R. Replacement of fish meal in diets for Australian silver perch, Bidyanus bidyanus: I. Digestibility of alternative ingredients. Aquaculture 2000, 186, 293–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Furuya, W.M.; Sales, P.J.P.; dos Santos, L.D.; da Silva, L.C.R.; de Souza Silva, T.C.; Furuya, V.R.B. Composição química e coeficientes de digestibilidade aparente dos subproduto desidratados das polpas de tomate e goiaba para tilápia do nilo (Oreochromis niloticus). Bol. Do Inst. De Pesca 2008, 34, 505–510. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Chemical and percentile composition of the reference diet used to determine the apparent digestibility coefficients of ingredients for juvenile M. rosenbergii (as fed basis).
Table 1. Chemical and percentile composition of the reference diet used to determine the apparent digestibility coefficients of ingredients for juvenile M. rosenbergii (as fed basis).
Ingredients (%)Nutritional Value
Soybean meal44.12Dry matter (%)95.57
Fishmeal 125.00Crude protein (%)38.59
Corn24.42Gross energy (Kcal kg−1)4.433
Soybean oil3.34Ether extract (%)2.48
Cellulose2.00Ash (%)10.42
Premix 21.00Methionine (%)0.59
Chromic oxide0.10Lysine (%)2.34
Antioxidant BHT0.02
Total100.00
Diet test
Diet reference100 − 30
Ingredient test30
1 Fishmeal comprising Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) by-products. This ingredient is commonly used in aquafeed in the digestibility trial region, as it is more affordable than ingredients such as anchovy fishmeal. 2 Vitamin and mineral supplement assurance levels per kilogram of product: Folic acid: 200 mg; calcium pantothenate: 4000 mg; biotin: 40 mg; Cu: 2000 mg; Fe: 12,500 mg; I: 200 mg; Mn: 7500 mg; niacin: 5000 mg; Se: 70 mg; Vit. A: 1,000,000 UI; Vit. B1: 1900 mg; Vit. B12: 3500 mg; Vit. B2: 2000 mg; Vit. B6: 2400 mg; Vit. C: 50,000 mg; Vit. D3: 500,000 UI; Vit. E: 20,000 UI; Vit. K3: 500 mg; Zn: 25,000 mg.
Table 2. Physical and chemical water quality parameters monitored during the experimental period.
Table 2. Physical and chemical water quality parameters monitored during the experimental period.
Parameters
Total Ammonia (mg L−1)0.02 ± 0.03
Nitrite (mg L−1)0.01 ± 0.01
Nitrate (mg L−1)1.19 ± 0.71
Total Alkalinity (mg L−1 CaCO3)83.17 ± 8.40
Total Hardness (mg L−1 CaCO3)27.67 ± 23.90
pH7.76 ± 0.30
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L−1)6.65 ± 1.00
Temperature (°C)27.00 ± 1.10
Values are presented as mean ± SD.
Table 3. Chemical and bromatological composition of ingredients used in the experimental diets (as fed basis).
Table 3. Chemical and bromatological composition of ingredients used in the experimental diets (as fed basis).
Essential Amino AcidsFishPoultry VisceraHydrolysed FeatherGromphadorhina portentosa
IngredientDietIngredientDietIngredientDietIngredientDiet
Histidine1.010.931.190.941.140.931.711.08
Threonine2.301.942.951.874.062.471.941.77
Valina2.221.903.042.117.443.033.292.10
Methionine1.350.770.90.640.760.620.710.57
Isoleucine1.831.701.941.794.072.261.891.64
Leucine3.262.944.053.097.033.943.42.83
Phenylalanine1.951.792.251.864.332.402.031.71
Lysine3.482.612.932.332.962.282.752.21
Nutrients
Dry matter (%)93.7995.9295.2096.4088.0894.9493.3594.54
Crude Protein (%)58.6447.1555.1846.4176.1652.6274.9051.81
Gross Energy (Kcal kg−1)39404303503347305424470949904891
Ether extract (%)6.224.0111.976.123.243.0411.336.36
Ash (%)23.4414.962.6411.4519.488.204.888.72
Table 4. Apparent digestibility coefficient (ADC) of crude protein (ADCCP), gross energy (ADCGE), and ether extract (ADCEE) for the ingredients used for the formulation of experimental diets (dry matter basis).
Table 4. Apparent digestibility coefficient (ADC) of crude protein (ADCCP), gross energy (ADCGE), and ether extract (ADCEE) for the ingredients used for the formulation of experimental diets (dry matter basis).
IngredientsDry MatterProteinEnergyEther Extract
ADCDMDMADCCPDPADCGEDEADCEEDEE
%%%Kcal kg−1%
Reference diet85.12-94.00-92.01-98.77-
Fishmeal61.4857.6688.28 a55.2088.25371199.896.21
Poultry viscera76.4872.8181.55 a 47.2785.13428597.2912.24
Hydrolysed feather73.8265.0275.21 ab65.0376.42414573.172.69
Gromphadorhina portentosa52.3548.8759.48 b 47.7267.64361687.9510.68
ADCs and digestible values of EAA
Essential amino acidsFishPoultry visceraHydrolysed featherGromphadorhina portentosa
ADCEAADEAAADCEAADEAAADCEAADEAAADCEAADEAA
%%%%
Histidine88.870.9089.501.0673.010.8313.290.23
Threonine90.752.0992.522.7379.653.2368.231.32
Valine87.391.9484.482.5770.825.2712.800.42
Methionine89.261.2090.330.8182.960.6386.090.61
Isoleucine87.881.6188.251.7178.263.1967.931.28
Leucine89.042.9088.523.5975.295.2966.112.25
Phenylalanine85.841.6787.701.9777.053.3468.001.38
Lysine91.123.1787.772.5778.252.3283.332.29
Means in the same column followed by equal letters do not differ statistically from each other according to Tukey’s test at 5% probability (p > 0.05). DM: digestible dry matter; DP: digestible protein; DEE: digestible ether extract; DE: digestible energy. EAA: essential amino acids; ADCEAA: apparent digestibility coefficient of essential amino acids; DEAA: digestible essential amino acids.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lopes Ferreira, R.; de Souza Valente, C.; Rosa Silva, L.C.; Costa de Sousa, N.; Mauerwerk, M.T.; Cupertino Ballester, E.L. Apparent Digestibility Coefficients of Nutrients and Energy from Animal-Origin Proteins for Macrobrachium rosenbergii Juveniles. Fishes 2024, 9, 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes9090341

AMA Style

Lopes Ferreira R, de Souza Valente C, Rosa Silva LC, Costa de Sousa N, Mauerwerk MT, Cupertino Ballester EL. Apparent Digestibility Coefficients of Nutrients and Energy from Animal-Origin Proteins for Macrobrachium rosenbergii Juveniles. Fishes. 2024; 9(9):341. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes9090341

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lopes Ferreira, Rosane, Cecília de Souza Valente, Lilian Carolina Rosa Silva, Nathã Costa de Sousa, Marlise Teresinha Mauerwerk, and Eduardo Luís Cupertino Ballester. 2024. "Apparent Digestibility Coefficients of Nutrients and Energy from Animal-Origin Proteins for Macrobrachium rosenbergii Juveniles" Fishes 9, no. 9: 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes9090341

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop