Thursday 1500 Lupins in Aquaculture

8/3/2019 Thursday 1500 Lupins in Aquaculture

1/35

International Lupin Conference Fremantle, 14th- 18thSeptember 2008

Dr Brett Glencross Aquaculture Feed Grains Programepartment of Fisheries

O Box 20, North Beach 6020 estern Australia

HARVESTING THEBENEFITS OF LUPINSIN AQUACULTUREFEEDS


2/35


1 in every 2 fish eaten is now farmed

The Rise of Aquaculture

Industrial/Reduction Fisheries


3/35


Feed Resource LimitsProtein Fat - Starch

40 30 - 10

45 20 - 10

50 15 - 10

30 6 - 20

Australia 25 12 63


4/35


Being too dependent on any one ingredient is aRISK due to: Supply issues Price volatility Contaminant issues

Managing Ingredient RISK

Source : IFFO


5/35


The RISK can be reduced by using alternativeingredients to provide nutrients and energy However some types of alternatives introducenew variety of RISKS

Contaminants (e.g. Mycotoxins) Anti-nutritional factors (e.g. Saponins)

Quality variability (e.g. Digestible protein variability)

Fishmeal

Fishoil

Wheat

Alt 1Alt 2

Alt 3High Risk Formulation Low Risk Formulation

Managing Ingredient RISK


6/35International Lupin Conference Fremantle, 14th- 18thSeptember 2008

Aquaculture Feed Grains Program

From 1992

2002 Forerunner Fishmeal Replacement

Research Programs undertook studies on a wide range of

ingredients

From 2002 to 2008 a focus of studies was made to understand

Grain processing technology Protein concentrate technology Nutrient and energy digestibility

Growth and feed intake variability Anti-Nutritional Factor assessment Fish Gut health Extrusion processing assessment

Involved a large multidisciplinary research team from 7

different organizations (research and industry) with skills in

grain breeding, grain processing, grain chemistry, animal

nutrition, feed manufacturing and grain marketing

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/ResAquaNutEnviron



Grain Species

Rapeseed

Soybeans

Field Peas

Lupins



Processing Lupins

Lupin seed

Lupin kernels

Lupin Protein

Isolate(LPI)

30% protein40% protein60% protein80% protein

Lupin Protein

Concentrate

(LPC)



Grain CompositionGrain DM Protein Fat Ash Starch NSP

Soybean

Solevent-extracted 89 48 1 9 1 31

Full-fat 91 42 20 5 1 24

Lupin

L. angustifolius seed 91 32 6 3 1 50

L. angustifolius kernel 90 39 7 3 1 41

L. albuskernel 92 44 11 4 1 33

L. luteus kernel 90 52 7 4 1 27

L. mutabilis kernel 91 52 17 4 1 18

Rapeseed

Expellet-extracted 90 34 12 4 1 39

Solevent-extracted 90 39 2 6 1 43

Field Pea

Whole seed 90 23 1 3 32 33

Kernel meal 91 26 2 2 45 17

All samples are expressed as % as received basis



300320340360380400420440460480500

Quilinock

Mand

elup

T

anjil

Wa

rrah

Moonah

Illy

arrie

K

alya

Be

lara

Y

orrel

D

anja

Ch

ittick

WALAN2173

Yandee

Myallie

Gung

urru

M

errit

Talle

rack

Marri

Wo

nga

Unicrop

Geeb

ung

Uniw

hite

Uniharvest

Protein (g/kg DM)

All samples are dehulled (kernel) Lupinus angustifoliuscultivars

produced in same year from same site

Variability in Composition



Assessing Effects of Grains

Feed Intake

Utilisation

(Growth/Retention)Digestibility

Pathology

Blood chemistry

Gene / ProteinExpression



Grain Variability

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

N P Energy OM

L. albus

L. angustifolius

L. luteus

Soybean

Apparent Digestibility Coefficients

Glencross, B.D., Hawkins, W.E. (2004). Aquaculture Nutrition. 10, 65-73.



0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

0 20 40 60 80 100

Lupin dehulling efficinecy (%)ApparntdigestibilityCoefficient

Dehulling Lupins -

igestibilityProtein

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0 20 40 60 80 100

Lupin dehulling efficiency (%)

ApparentDigestibilityCoefficient

Energy

L. angustifoliuscv. Coromup

L. angustifoliuscv. Coromup

Glencross et al. (2004) Aquaculture Nutrition 13, 462-470



Differences among Species

Response of each species to ingredient energy

digestibilities of a range of ingredients.Glencross 2008. Unpublished.

y = 0.641x + 0.311

R2 = 0.925, P = 0.0001

0.750

0.800

0.850

0.900

0.950

0.750 0.800 0.850 0.900 0.950

Trout - ADC

Barramundi-ADC

y = 0.467x + 0.387

R2 = 0.619, P = 0.0119

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200

Trout - ADC

B

arramundi-ADC

Diet Energy Ingredient Energy



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Myallie-R

E

F

Belara

Dan

ja

Gungurru

Jindale

e

Kaly

a

Mandelu

p

Merrit

Moona

h

Myallie

Quilinoc

k

Tallerac

k

Tan

jil

W217

3

Wong

a

Yorrel

Crude Protein Digestible Protein

Digestibility Complexity

L. angustifoliusvarieties (kernel meals)Glencross et al. (2008) Aquaculture 277, 251-262.



Influence of Composition

Digestible protein level is positively affected by kernel mealprotein content and negatively affected by the kernel meal

Non Starch Polysaccharide (NSP) content.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Crude Protein (% DM)

DigesitblePro

tein(%DM)

R2=0.7429, P=0.0001, n=135

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Crude NSP (% DM)

DigesitblePro

tein(%DM)

R2=0.5495, P=0.0001, n=75

Glencross et al. (2008) Aquaculture 277, 220-230.



Grain Structure

LigninHemicellulose

Pectin

Cellulose

PrimaryCell Wall

PlasmaMembrane



0.10.4

0.71.0

1.31.6

1.930

3336

3942

4548

0

5

10

15

2025

30

35

40

45

50

45-50

40-45

35-40

30-35

25-30

20-25

15-20

10-15

5-10

0-5

Lignin (%) Protein (%)

Digestible Protein (%)

Glencross et al. (2008) Aquaculture 277, 220-230.

Digestibility Complexity



Lupin kernel meal NIRS spectra DPV DEV

Reference Mean (%) 41.3 11.5

Reference SD (%) 3.64 0.52

Population Range (%) 20.4 4.4

Population SD (%) 4.3 1.0

SECV 2.7 0.75

R2

0.472 0.355

DPV Digestible Protein ValueDEV Digestible Energy Value

n=75 samples


20/35


Comparative Growth Value

Glencross et al. (2008) Unpublished.

All diets were formulated to the same digestibleprotein (38%) and energy (18.0 MJ/kg) levels

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Meal Inclusion Level (%)

Fi

nalWeight(g

/fish)

Narrow-Leaf Lupin

Yellow

lupin

Soybean


21/35


Comparative Feed Intake

Glencross et al. (2008) Unpublished.

All diets were formulated to the same digestibleprotein (38%) and energy (18.0 MJ/kg) levels

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

5960

0 10 20 30 40 50

Meal Inclusion Level (%)

FeedIntake(g/fish)

Narrow-

Leaf Lupin

Yellow

lupin

Soybean


22/35


Anti-Nutritional Factors

All values are mg/kg of dry matter unless otherwise detailed

Plant anti-nutritional factors are natural chemical

defense mechanism evolved by plants to protect

them against being eaten

All values mg/kg DM Alkaloids Phytate TanninsTrypisin

InhibitorOligosaccharides

L. angustifolius cv Mandelup KM 33 5,222 0 9,222 85,556L. angustifolius cv Myallie KM 43 4,839 0 5,161 62,366L. angustifolius cv Merrit KM 11 5,761 0 1,957 64,130L. angustifolius cv Belara KM 11 5,889 0 6,444 88,889L. luteus cv Wodjil KM 143 7,253 0 2,857 102,198L. albus cv Kiev mutant KM 231 4,545 568 6,250 78,409Whole Soybean 292 8,202 0 22,247 40,449

Solvent Extracted Soybean meal 44 8,889 0 10,000 62,222Solvent Extracted Canola Meal 22 12,043 1,505 10,860 11,828Whole Canola (Surpass 501TT) 22 10,440 549 9,451 12,088Whole Field Pea (Laura-Dunwa) 11 5,435 7,826 8,152 33,696Dehulled Field Pea (Laura-Dunwa) 11 6,154 989 10,989 36,264


23/35


Alkaloids

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3540

45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0

100

500

1000

10000

Intake (g) / tank of 20 fish (n=4)

Days Post Treatment Allocation

Gramine (mg/kg)

Glencross, et al., (2005). Aquaculture 253, 512-522.


24/35


Intestinal Pathology

Refstie et al., (2006). Aquaculture 261, 1382-1395.

Normal mucosa

Severe histopathological changes

typical soybean meal-induced

enteritis

Diet Normal Moderate Severe

Fishmeal 3 2 1

L. luteus KM 6L. angustifolius KM 4 1 1

Soybean Meal 1 4

Degree of Intestinal Damage

with Atlantic salmon


25/35


Functional/Technical Aspects Ingredients need to be made into pellets with key physical

attributes, including:

Binding strength

Oil absorption

Durability

Sinkability

Water stability

Extrusion followed by tests on various physical parameters is

the best way to test ingredient influence on feed production


26/35


Grain Inclusion EffectsBulk Density - Precoated (g/L)

400

450

500

550

600

650

0 100 200 300 400

Soybean

Myallie-C

Wodjil

Vacuum oil uptake (g/kg)

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

0 100 200 300 400

Soybean

Myallie-REF

Wodjil

Hardness (force (g) to split)

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

0 100 200 300 400

Soybean

Myallie-REF

Wodjil

Inclusion level (g/kg) Inclusion level (g/kg)

L. angustifolius

L. luteus

L. angustifolius

L. luteus

L. angustifolius

L. luteus

-10

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

0 100 200 300 400

Soybean

L. angustifolius

L. lutues

Sink rate (cm/s)


27/35


?

Most Australian

fish feeds nowcontain a lupincomponent

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Tonnes p.a. Global Lupin Use in Aquafeeds

?

Industry Development2000 -

0 tonnes @ $350 = $0

2004

38kT @ $350 = $13.3M2005 44kT @ $350 = $15.4M


28/35


Market Values

Based on kernel meal value of $350 / tonne andhull value of $100 / tonneDehulling yields of 70%

All values are FOB basis.All values are NON drought year basis.

MarketSeed

EquivalentKernel Meal Hulls

Human ? ? ?Aqua + Feedlot $275 $350 $100Aqua $245 $350 -Feedlot $220 - -

Market Price $200 - -Pigs $190 - -Poultry $180 - -Feedlot $30 - $100


29/35


Industry Development

Commenced commercial kernel mealproduction in 2007

Capacity for 200,000 tonnes


30/35


Summary A variety of lupin products exist with promising potentialfor the aquaculture feeds sector.

The kernel meals of several varieties are already beingused in salmonid and marine fish diets throughout theworld.

Lupins show excellent nutritional attributes for use in

fish diets

Use of lupins can improve the physical properties of fishfeeds in which they are included

Adoption of lupin kernel meal use by the aquaculture

feed sector, has been steady, but limited by volatileworld grain prices.


31/35


http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/ResAquaNutEnviron/

Acknowledgements

Wayne Hawkins, Sofia Sipsas, Mark Sweetingham, Max Karopoulos,Bevan Buirchell, Shandell Pursell

Peter McCafferty, Ken Dods, David Harris, Lincoln Morton

David Smith, Kevin Williams, Simon Tabrett, Margaret Barclay

Neil Rutherford, David Evans, Brian Jones

Chris Carter, Keith Irwin, Louise Ward

Mark Tucek, Jason Craig, Peter Portmann, Ros Jettner

Mirjana Prica, Cathy Fryirs, Sherry Duckworth, Peter Schultz

Rhys Hauler, Craig Foster, Wolfgang Koppe, Gunvor Baardsen


32/35


AlkaloidsTeo Wodjil

Gramine 691 6Epinine 155 279

Spartine 12 18

Multiflorine 23 26

TOTAL 881 329

L. Luteuskernel meals


33/35


-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0 10 100 500 1000 1500 10000 Neg -1 Neg -2 Wodjil Teo Blend

Growth Rate (g/d)

Growth Rate

Gramine Content (mg/kg Diet)

30% AustralianVariety

30% EuropeanVariety

Glencross, et al., (2005). Aquaculture 253, 512-522.

Gramine


34/35


-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 100 200 300 400

Digestible Energy Intake / kg0.8

/ d

EnergyG

ain/

kg0

.8/d

FISHMEAL

MKM 15%

MKM 30%

Efficiency of Energy Use

Glencross et al. (2008) Aquaculture Nutrition, 14, 129-138.


35/35

Near Infra-Red Spectroscopy Development of technology to rapidly assessthe composition and nutritional value of lupinsfor aquafeeds

Widely used by industry

Documents

Thursday 1500 Lupins in Aquaculture