| Literature DB >> 23028667 |
Richard Le Boucher1, Mathilde Dupont-Nivet, Marc Vandeputte, Thierry Kerneïs, Lionel Goardon, Laurent Labbé, Béatrice Chatain, Marie Josée Bothaire, Laurence Larroquet, Françoise Médale, Edwige Quillet.
Abstract
Genetic adaptation to dietary environments is a key process in the evolution of natural populations and is of great interest in animal breeding. In fish farming, the use of fish meal and fish oil has been widely challenged, leading to the rapidly increasing use of plant-based products in feed. However, high substitution rates impair fish health and growth in carnivorous species. We demonstrated that survival rate, mean body weight and biomass can be improved in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) after a single generation of selection for the ability to adapt to a totally plant-based diet (15.1%, 35.3% and 54.4%, respectively). Individual variability in the ability to adapt to major diet changes can be effectively used to promote fish welfare and a more sustainable aquaculture.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23028667 PMCID: PMC3460975 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044898
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Ingredients and proximal composition of the experimental diets M (M1, M2) and PB (PB1, PB2).
| Diets | M1 | M2 | PB1 | PB2 |
|
| ||||
| Fishmeal | 692 | 623 | 0 | 0 |
| Maize gluten | 0 | 0 | 250 | 170 |
| Soybean meal | 0 | 0 | 208 | 200 |
| Wheat gluten | 0 | 0 | 239 | 250 |
| Extruded wheat | 187 | 240 | 0 | 50 |
| White lupin | 0 | 0 | 70 | 57 |
| Extruded dehulled pea | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 |
| Fish oil | 81 | 97 | 0 | 0 |
| Rapeseed oil | 0 | 0 | 62 | 62 |
| Linseed oil | 0 | 0 | 37 | 37 |
| Palm oil | 0 | 0 | 24 | 24 |
| Soya lecithin | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 |
| L-Lysine | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 |
| L-Arginine | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| CaHPO4.2H20 (18%P) | 0 | 0 | 35 | 35 |
| Binder | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Min. Premix | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Vit. Premix | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
|
| ||||
| Crude Protein (% dry matter) | 54.6 | 47.1 | 50.5 | 44.8 |
| Lipids (% dry matter) | 15.6 | 22.8 | 16.2 | 23.3 |
| Energy (kJ/g dry matter) | 22.5 | 23.5 | 23.2 | 23.6 |
M1 diet was given from first feeding to 236 dpf and M2 from 236 dpf until the end of the trial to adapt protein and lipid content to the nutritional requirements of larger fish.
PB1 diet was given from first feeding to 280 dpf and PB2 from 280 dpf until the end of the trial to adapt protein and lipid content to the nutritional requirements of larger fish.
Figure 1Effects of selection on survival and growth performances.
(A) Ten successive weight measurements were carried out during the first year of life. Growth curves are shown for the four line x diet combinations. Stars denote the significance of the diet*line interaction for body weight at every date of measurement (*: P<0.1; **: P<0.05; ***: P<0.01). (B) Selection gain for body weight (%) is calculated for fish fed with a plant-based (PB) diet (green line) and fish fed with a marine diet (blue line). The difference between the two gains is the PB diet-specific selection gain for the ability to grow when fed with a plant-based diet after one generation of selection. (C) The survival rate (%) was significantly higher in selected fish when fed PB diet when there was no difference between selected and unselected population when fed M diet. Different letters mean significant differences (P<0.05) between groups. (D) The coefficient of variation of body weight (%) was higher in groups of fish fed the PB diets throughout the trial, but was significantly reduced by selection in the case of the PB diet. Different letters mean significant differences (P<0.05) between groups.
Ls-means of body weight (BW), survival rate (Su), biomass (Biom) and coefficient of variation (CV) for ten dates and their statistical analyzes for line, diet effects and line*diet interaction.
| Trait | Dpf | C-M | C-PB | S-M | S-PB | Diet | Line | Diet*Line |
|
| 60 | 0.3±0.0 | 0.2±0.0 | 0.4±0.0 | 0.2±0.0 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.2131 |
|
| 102 | 2.0±0.0 | 0.9±0.0 | 2.4±0.0 | 1.2±0.0 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0791 |
|
| 145 | 6.9±0.1 | 3.4±0.1 | 8.3±0.1 | 4.6±0.1 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0098 |
|
| 168 | 14.8±0.2 | 7.1±0.2 | 17.2±0.2 | 9.4±0.2 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0014 |
|
| 193 | 30.9±0.5 | 12.8±0.5 | 34.4±0.5 | 16.6±0.5 | 0.0005 | 0.0001 | 0.0482 |
|
| 216 | 59.3±0.9 | 25.3±0.9 | 65.5±0.9 | 31.9±0.9 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0097 |
|
| 236 | 78.8±2.3 | 37.7±2.3 | 86.2±2.3 | 47.6±2.3 | 0.0006 | 0.0001 | 0.0377 |
|
| 291 | 188.8±5.4 | 91.0±5.4 | 203.5±5.4 | 107.6±5.4 | 0.0033 | 0.0001 | 0.1588 |
|
| 312 | 292.2±7.8 | 137.2±7.8 | 310.4±7.9 | 161.6±7.8 | 0.0040 | 0.0001 | 0.1106 |
|
| 355 | 526.2±10.9 | 225.1±10.9 | 546.3±10.9 | 260.5±10.9 | 0.0107 | 0.0001 | 0.0898 |
|
| 145 | 91.5±0.9 | 66.9±0.9 | 90.3±0.9 | 77.0±0.9 | 0.0001 | 0.0027 | 0.0003 |
|
| 193 | 91.1±1.1 | 64.9±1.1 | 90.0±1.1 | 75.3±1.1 | 0.0001 | 0.0098 | 0.0019 |
|
| 291 | 75.4±3.1 | 55.8±3.1 | 70.1±3.1 | 67.6±3.1 | 0.0064 | 0.3397 | 0.0254 |
|
| 145 | 3.5±0.0 | 1.3±0.0 | 4.1±0.0 | 2.0±0.0 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0008 |
|
| 193 | 15.6±0.2 | 4.6±0.2 | 17.1±0.2 | 6.9±0.2 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0007 |
|
| 291 | 78.7±4.6 | 28.1±4.6 | 79.1±4.6 | 40.2±4.6 | 0.0001 | 0.0202 | 0.0190 |
|
| 145 | 26.8±1.3 | 37.8±1.3 | 24.1±1.3 | 28.9±1.3 | 0.0022 | 0.0003 | 0.0460 |
|
| 193 | 28.0±0.8 | 40.0±0.8 | 24.2±0.8 | 33.6±0.8 | 0.0002 | 0.0001 | 0.1374 |
|
| 291 | 25.9±1.9 | 42.5±1.9 | 23.5±1.9 | 35.4±1.9 | 0.0338 | 0.0001 | 0.2497 |
Body weight in grams.
Survival rate in %.
Biomass in kg.
Coefficient of variation of BW in %.
Dates in days post-fertilization.
Standard-errors are indicated after each value as well as significance of diet effect (Diet), line effect (Line) and the interaction between diet and line (Diet*Line).
Composition of whole fish after 291 days for dry matter (DM), lipid (Lip), protein (Pt), energy (Ener), EPA (20:5n−3), DHA (22:6n−3) and statistical test for selection, diet effects and interaction.
| C-M | SE | C-PB | SE | S-M | SE | S-PB | SE | Sel | Diet | Sel*Diet | |
|
| 31.1a | 0.4 | 31.8a | 0.2 | 31.9a | 1.3 | 32.0a | 0.6 | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. |
|
| 12.6a | 0.2 | 15.1a | 0.1 | 12.4a | 0.6 | 15.1a | 0.4 | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. |
|
| 16.6a | 0.3 | 15.2b | 0.3 | 16.9a | 0.4 | 15.2b | 0.4 | n.s. | *** | n.s. |
|
| 27.2a | 0.6 | 29.3a | 0.7 | 27.0a | 0.3 | 29.7a | 0.1 | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. |
|
| 84.4a | 4.5 | 6.4b | 1.6 | 90.7a | 7.4 | 5.8b | 0.3 | n.s. | *** | n.s. |
|
| 114.4a | 7.5 | 20.0b | 3.2 | 122.2a | 7.8 | 19.1b | 0.9 | n.s. | *** | n.s. |
Different superscript letters indicate significance difference between values (P<0.05).
*** means P<0.01,** means P<0.05, * means P<0.1, n.s. P>0.1).
In %.
In % of wet weight.
In mg.g lipid−1.
Observed gain (%) for body weight (BW), survival rate (Su) and total biomass (Biom) between selected and control lines fed on M (Gain M) or PB (Gain PB) diet and the PB-specific gain.
| Trait | dpf | Gain M | Gain PB | PB-specific gain |
|
| 60 | 9.2% | 21.4% | 12.2% |
|
| 102 | 20.0% | 33.3% | 13.3% |
|
| 145 | 20.3% | 35.3% | 15.0% |
|
| 168 | 16.2% | 32.4% | 16.2% |
|
| 193 | 11.3% | 29.7% | 18.4% |
|
| 216 | 10.5% | 26.1% | 15.6% |
|
| 236 | 9.4% | 26.3% | 16.9% |
|
| 291 | 7.8% | 18.2% | 10.5% |
|
| 312 | 6.2% | 17.8% | 11.6% |
|
| 355 | 3.8% | 15.7% | 11.9% |
|
| 145 | 0% | 15.1% | 15.1% |
|
| 193 | 0% | 16.2% | 16.2% |
|
| 291 | 0% | 21.1% | 21.1% |
|
| 145 | 19.0% | 54.4% | 35.4% |
|
| 193 | 10.0% | 50.1% | 40.1% |
|
| 291 | 0.2% | 43.2% | 43.0% |
Calculated with model (2).
Calculated with model (3).
Calculated with model (4) as the difference between Gain M and Gain PB.