ALBERTO J .P. NUNESAssociMte Professor, LMbomMrCUFC, BRAZHL

Sept. 27th, 2017Session 3: butrition and feed management

0930 –1000 h

MOST LUCRATHVE AQUACULTURE SECTOR

Source: CAh, Departm

ent ofCisheriesandAquaculture. h

nline

query.0

800

1,600

2,400

3,200

4,000

4,800

8081828384858687888990919293949596979899000102030405060708091011121314

t whDU C TLhb DhU . LEDExpansion in farmed area and production: annual

growth rate of 26%

Emergence and outb reaks of viral diseases:

A nnual growth rate of 6%

C onsolidation of L. vannameiand intensification:

A nnual growth rate of 10%

80% Litopenaeus vannamei

t enaeusmonodon14%

6%hthers

YEA w

Tiger shrimp, t enaeusmonodon

W hitelegt acific shrimp, Litopenaeusvannamei

< 21 d < 24 h < 6 h

< 30 d < 180 d < 24 h

04/10/2017

t onds (earthen or lined) or tanks> 25 g shrimp: > 3 months

t onds (earthen or lined)< 0.5 g (2 g) –12 g (30 g): 90 –180 days

Tanks and wacewaysbauplius –>t L 10: 2 -4 weeks

waceways (or nursery ponds)t L 11–t L 21(2 g): 10 -15 days ((> 30 days)

Hmprove tMil quMlity Mnd

shelf-life

Prom

ote gonMdMl developm

ent Mnd hMtching rMtes

HncreMse resistMnce Mnd tolerMnce to stress

Boost grow

th MndenhMnce feed intMke

Meet E

PA Mnd DH

A nutrient requirem

ents

HncreMse resistMnce Mnd tolerMnce to stress

1

2

4C6 DC6 6C6

t onds (earthen or lined)> 8 g –commercial size (Last 30 days b efore harvest)

1C6 2C6 3C6

Cixed & proprietary

Least-C ost Corm.

Digestibility & supplementation1980́s

1990’s -2005

2005

Exotic ingredientsU nknown growth factors

Shift in farmed speciesM eeting nutrient requirements

weduction in fishmeal use; alternative proteinsCormulation on a digestible basisC rystalline amino acids, novel additives

bU TwLEbT wEv U LwEM EbTS & ChwM U L A TLhb

wA W M A TEwLA L S & CEED

t whC ESSLbD

C U LTU wE SYSTEM & CEED

M A bA DEM EbT

EA At enaeusmonodon

wECEwEbC ELitopenaeus vannamei

wECEwEbC E

A wDLbLbE 1.9 M illamenaetal. (1998) 2.0 Zhouet al. (2012)H LSTLDLbE 0.8

M illamenaetal. (1999)- -

LShLEU C LbE 1.0 1.6* Lie et al. (2014)LEU C LbE 1.7 2.4* Liuet al. (2014)

LYSLbE 2.1 M illamenaetal. (1998) 1.6Cox et al. (2995) Xie

et al. (2012)M ETH LhbLbE 0.9

M illamenaetal. (1996)- -

M ET +C YS 1.3 - -t H EbYL A L A bLbE 1.4 M illamenaetal. (1999) - -TH wEhbLbE 1.4 M illamenaetal. (1997) 1.5* H uaiet al. (2009)TwYt Tht H A b 0.2 M illamenaetal. (1999) - -V A LLbE 1.4 M illamenaetal. (1996) - -*Lowwatersalinity

METHHONHNE CONTENTCOMMERCHAL SHRHMP FEEDS, BRAZHL

*Total of 91 feed samples (32 feed types; 07 commercial b rands). Years 2014-2015.

M et & M et+C ys: greatest coefficient

of variation

C hD H LS A wD TEw A L A TYw V A L M ET C YS LSh LEU CEb LYS C tM EA b 0.792.561.351.981.041.640.700.401.362.581.552.0435.89M Lb. 0.612.081.011.510.821.290.330.281.101.931.211.5927.71M A X. 0.962.911.572.391.201.971.110.521.633.151.752.3840.71

SD 0.090.210.130.200.100.180.180.070.130.320.140.192.74C V 11% 8% 10% 10% 10% 11% 25% 18% 9% 13% 9% 9% 8%

Source: v ueiroz Dalvão A limentos S.A .

M et Dietary Level (% of the diet, DM )

8.70

8.80

8.90

9.00

9.10

9.20

9.30

9.40

9.50

0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50

Cina

l .od

y W

eigh

t (g)

Xopt= 1.05% M ETXopt= 0.94% M ET

M ET . whKEb-LLbEy = 8.202 + 1.250xw2= 0.894; t = 0.054; whenx < 0.94y = 9.779 –0.418xw2= 0.984; t = 0.085; whenx > 0.94

M ET v U A DwA TLC Ev U A TLhby = 7.126 + 4.304x –2.052x2

w2= 0.997; t = 0.004

M LbLM U M M A XLM U M

Source: Caçanha, C.; hliveira-beto, A .; M asagounder, K.; bunes, A .J.t. 2017. U npublished.

S U t t hwT: Evonikbutrition& C are Dmb H (Dermany), EvonikDegussado . rasil Ltda. (. razil) and A jinomoto do . rasil Ltda. (. razil)

t hoto: M auricio A lb anoDate: 30/09/2008

LMrge eMrthen ponds: 2 to 1D hMLow yields: < 1 to 3 MTCcropNo or supplementMl MerMtionPhytoplMnkton controlled

SmMll eMrthen or lined ponds: < 0.D hMHigh yields: 12-30 MTCcrop

Strong MerMtion: 20-30 hpChMPhytoplMnkton Mnd bMcteriMl controlled system

15.61

16.05

16.80

16.05

16.61

15.91

15.21

16.11

16.59

16.09

14.87

15.19

15.5115.58

15.73

14.50

15.00

15.50

16.00

16.50

17.00

0.480.620.720.810.94 0.480.620.720.810.94 0.480.620.720.810.94Shrimp Stocking Density/Dietary M ethionine C ontent (% of diet, dry matter b asis)

50 shrimp/m2 75 shrimp/m2 100 shrimp/m2

aA

b A

cAcA

b .

aA

a.

c.

a.

a.

ab .

cCcC

bcC

Cina

l .od

y W

eigh

t (g)

ab A

Lowercase: differences b etween dietary M et at the same stocking densityC A t LTA L : differences b etween stocking densities at the same level of dietary M ET

Shrimp b ody weight reduces with an increase in stocking density

Data: Caçanhaet al, 2016. Aquaculture, 463 (2016) 16–21

Lnitial size

wearingsystem V ariable Diet C t hptimal

M et %DLETM et%C t Source

1.97 g Dreenwater

Stocking density1 t ractical 36% 0.72-0.81 2.00–2.25 Caçanhaet al.

(2016)

1.98 g Dreenwater

W ater exchange regime2 t ractical 36% 0.81-0.94 2.25 –2.61 U npublished

data*

1.82 g Dreenwater

Ceed allowance3

t ractical 32% 0.69-0.79 2.15 –2.47 U npublished data*Stocking

density4

1–50, 75 and 100 shrimp/m2;2–Clow-through (24h at 14.4% a day)and static (once weekly at 10-20%);3-Shrimp were fed under a regular feed allowance and 30% in excess;4–75 and 120 shrimp/m2

*PreliminMry dMtM from collMborMtive studies with Evonik Nutrition & CMre GmbH (GermMny).

EA A M ean±SD

C wU DE t whTELb 18.5 ±2.22A wDLbLbE 0.67 ±0.09H LSTLDLbE 0.17 ±0.03LShLEU C LbE 0.72 ±0.10LEU C LbE 1.16 ±0.16LYSLbE 0.56 ±0.08M ETH LhbLbE 0.21 ±0.03M ET +C YS 0.47 ±0.06t H EbYL A L A bLbE 1.07 ±0.14TH wEhbLbE bATwYt Tht H A b 0.20 ±0.03V A LLbE 0.94 ±0.12n = 11

1. FormulMtions still rely on Mmino Mcids from intMct protein sources to meet nutrient requirements

2. Hndigestible portion of the protein from feedstuffs

3. Excessive levels cMtMbolized Ms energy Ms releMsed into the wMter

1.ShLL DwYLbD A bD LLM LbD2.TwEA TM EbT W LTH t wh. LhTLC S3.LbC wEA SED W A TEw EXC H A bDE4.LLM LTLbD SThC KLbD DEbSLTY

9.48

11.1

7

10.3

9

9.83

10.6

6

11.3

2

10.6

7

10.6

1

10.4

4

9.92

9.83

10.6

0

10.3

9

10.7

0

9.95

10.8

5

9.06

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

13.00

31 34 37 40

Cina

l Shr

imp

.ody

Wei

ght (

g)

C rude t rotein C ontent (%, as is)

0.6% M et 0.7% M et 0.9% M et 1.0% M et C TL

aA *

bA *bA *bA *a. *a. *

b. *c. * a. *bA *

c. *cC * aC *

bA *bA *bA *

*

M A XLM U M CLbA L . hDY W ELDH T

*PreliminMry dMtM from M collMborMtive study with Evonik Nutrition & CMre GmbH (GermMny).

SHHFTS HN PROTEHN SOURCES

t rocessing waste meals from fisheries and aquaculture (tuna, tilapia, sardine, salmon)

A griculture meals and concentrates (soybean, canola, corn, rice, pea, cottonseed, sunflower)wendered animal b y-

products (poultry by-product meal, feather meal, blood meal, meat and b one meal)

CLSH ShLU . LES

THLAPHA MEAL

HN VHVO DHGESTHBHLHTK

84.2

82,2

69.8

75.4

80.0

66.7

66.7

83.1

84.3

81.9

74.8

79.3

47.3

62.9

70.6

45.8

48.6

81.4

84.4

78.8

61.7

wECStC

CDMt.M

M.M

CEA.LD

TLMC.M

SLMKLM

PRO

TEHN D

HGESTHBHLHTK

tLAbT

ACD Diet (%)

ACD Lngredient (%)

AvUATLC Ab

LMALS

LAbD AbLM

AL

LDEA L< A C C Et TA . LE >U bA C C Et TA LE

70-80% > 80%< 60%

Data: Cavalcanti, 2015. M.Sc. Thesis. Laboma/UCC

60-70%

11.05

10.26

10.47

10.33

9.97 8.93 8.24 7.71

10.13 9.42

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

ea

cda

bb

c

adaae

-7.7%

-5.5%

-6.9%-10.9%

-23.7%

-34.1% -43.3%

-9.0% -17.3%

29.8%

-3.4%

-11.4% -16.1%

-

16.4%

-6.0%

-16.0%-14.8%

-3.0%

% LhSS Lb SH wLM t . hDY W ELDH T% wEDU C TLhb Lb ChwM U L A C hST

CLbA L S H wLM t . hDY W ELDH T (g)( 2.03 ±0.21 g; 70 shrimp/m2; clear water,

72 days of culture) Source: SAbTh

S et al. (2013). M.Sc. Thesis. LA.h

MAw, .razil

S LM S W b . LD M . M CEA M . M TLM Ct M t . M C. M

NEAR HNFRARED REFLECTANCE SPECTROSCOPK (NHRS)

LM t LEM EbT v U LC K EV A L U A TLhb ThhLS Chw LbC hM LbD wA W M A TEwLA L S A bD CLbLSH ED CEEDS

Ceed arrival at farm

Sampling prior to unloading

bLwS analysis

t ermission tounload

Ceed rejection

Ceed storage botify supplier

LEACHHNG OF NUTRHENTS

1 H hU w 2 H hU wS

5 H hU wS 6 H hU wS4 H hU wS

C ommercial pelleted shrimp feed in seawater for 6 hours. W ater salinity = 36 ppt

t hotos: A lberto bunes

LEACHHNG OF NUTRHENTS

LEACHHNG OF NUTRHENTS

Afte

r Hei

nen

(198

0) a

nd M

acki

e (1

982)

LbC LTA bT(leads to initiation

of feeding)

hrientation

CeedingC ontinuation of Ceeding

CeedingC essation

A TTwA C TA bT(promotes feed

detection)

A wwESTA bT(interrupts feed detection)

STLM U L A bT(promotes

continuation of feeding)

A TTwA C TA bTS

wEt EL L A bT (causes feed rejection) S U t wESS A bT

(inhibits initiation of feeding)

DETEwwA bT(stops feeding

activity)

CEEDLbD LbC LTA bTS/STLM U L A bTS

CEEDLbD ECCEC ThwS

t = 0.0184.1% 3.2%

5.0%

2.06% 2.19%2.44%

7.52 g 7.82 g 7.76 g 7.90 g

0_KrSq 0.5%_KrSq 1.0%_KrSq 2.0%_KrSq

USD

750/

MT US

D 76

5/M

T

USD

766/

MT

USD

768/

MT

CLbA L S H wLM t . hDY W ELDH T (g)( 1.59 ±0.46 g; 70 shrimp/m2clear-water, 31-day culture; 35 ±0.9 g L -1

salinity, 7.6 ±0.30 pH , 28.6 ±0.6°C temperature)% DA Lb in performance% LbC wEA SE in formula cost

b

abab

a

ChwM

ULA

Ch

STSource: Sá et al. (2013).

FEED STHMULANTSsquid & krill meMl

04/10/201704/10/2017

1.Suresh et al. (2011):in feeds formulated with 20% poultry meal and no fishmeal, 3% of krill meal significantly improves feed attractab ility, palatab ility and shrimp growth

2.Sá et al. (2013): in a S t C -b ased feed with only 5.0% fish meal, a combination of whole squid meal and krill meal starting at 0.5% enhances shrimp final weight. Dreater effect at 2.0% of the diet.

3.H assan et al. (2016): a 1% dietary inclusion of krill meal in all-plant protein diets increases feed intake, while at 2% accelerates growth, increases yield and reduces CC w

4.Derb y et al. (2016): krill meal increases the feed palatab ility b y prolonging the feeding b out and the amount of feed eaten

a

0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0% Lnclusion of Krill meal (% of diet, as fed)

11.68 g 11.69 g 12.13 g 13.12 g 13.62 g

aa

b

bCLbA L S H wLM t . hDY W ELDH T (g)( 2.84 ±0.2 g; 70 shrimp/m2; 20 clear-water tanks, 72-day culture; 96.4 ±0.9% survival

Source: Sabry et al. 2016. A quaculture butrition, DhL:10.1111/anu.12392

FEED STHMULANTSkrill meMl in Mll plMnt-bMsed feeds

SHRHMP FEEDHNG FACTS

SM A L L SThM A C H3-4% of their . W

wA t LD SThM A C H C LEA wA bC E78% within 2 h

. ulk of feces within 1 h

EA T C hbTLbU hU S LYCull: 2.3% . W /hourEmpty: 4.9% . W /h

CEED W H LLE DLDESTLbD A b EA wLY M EA L

Source: bunes and t arsons (2000, A quaculture, 187: 133-151)

Shrimp are fed from 2 to 6 times a day by manual broadcasting or in feeding trays

bo nocturnal feedingCeed may sit in water

from 4 to as long as 8 hours

Little automationCeeds prone to loss of key

nutrients

A v 1 Systems t ty. Ltd

MULTHPLE-THMES FEEDHNG

M EC H A bLC A L CEEDLbD M A bU A L CEEDLbD

Shrimp t erforman.

Ceeding CrequencyM anual/Ceeding Trays A utomatic/M ultiple2 times 4 times Diurnal Day & bight

Survival (%) 80.4 ±7.7 89.5 ±13.6 92.4 ±4.6 97.1 ±15.1

. W (g) 8.50 ±1.51a 10.55 ±1.82b 11.76 ±1.82c 11.22 ±1.78d

DW D (g) 0.09 ±0.01a 0.12 ±0.01b 0.13 ±0.005b 0.13 ±0.005b

Yield (g/m2)* 579 ±62a 844 ±64b 960 ±99b 989 ±48b

Ceed§ 15.2. ±0.71a 16.5 ±0.69b 16.1 ±0.61ab 15.9 ±0.54ab

CC w 2.28 ±0.35a 1.98 ±0.16b 1.74 ±0.10b 1.56 ±0.12b

*Dained shrimp yield§Total amount of feed delivered (g) per stocked shrimp

MULTHPLE-THMES FEEDHNG

Data/Support: Evonik butrition & Care

DmbH (Derm

any).

TAKE-HOME MESSAGES1. DietMry Mmino Mcid composition more importMnt thMn crude protein

level Ask for dietMry methionine, lysine, Met+Cys levels

2. FormulMtions should Mccount for fMrm production vMriMbles Look Mt tMrgeted stocking density, nMturMl food MvMilMbility, feed

MllowMnce, Mnd wMter quMlity while choosing the best feed for your fMrm

3. Low fishmeMl feeds Mre designed with higher levels of MnimMl by-product Mnd plMnt proteins Apply tools to ensure feed hMve consistent formulMted levels Mnd

MdequMte digestibility4. Shrimp feeds Mre prone to leMching Mnd loss of key nutrients

Feed Ms mMny times Ms possible M dMy Mnd verify thMt feed MttrMctiveness Mnd shrimp foregut fullness

M uchas graciasE-mail: alb erto.nunes@ufc.b r