| Literature DB >> 31117249 |
Constant Motte1, Alfredo Rios2, Thomas Lefebvre3, Hong Do4, Morgane Henry5, Orapint Jintasataporn6.
Abstract
Recently, ecological and economic issues have affected fish meal (FM) supply, the main source of protein for shrimp. This triggered a search for alternative dietary protein sources for shrimp production. We studied the consequences of replacing FM with a defatted insect meal, ŸnMealTM (YM), comprised of yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor). Growth and immune parameters of juvenile Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannanmei) were compared after an eight-week feeding trial. Shrimp were kept in aquaria with densities of 60 and 40 shrimp/m2 and fed one of five diets in which a proportion of FM was replaced by YM. All diets were isoproteic, isoenergetic, and balanced in lysine and methionine. After the feeding trial, shrimp were challenged with pathogenic bacteria (Vibrio parahaemolyticus). Growth and feed conversion parameters improved when YM was included in shrimp diets; with the highest weight gain and best food conversion ratio (FCR) achieved when 50% of FM was replaced by YM versus the control diet that contained no YM (initial weight: 1.60 g/shrimp; growth: 5.27 vs. 3.94 g/shrimp; FCR 1.20 vs. 1.59). In challenged shrimp, mortality rates were significantly less among groups that received YM, with a 76.9% lower mortality rate in the 50% FM replacement group versus the control.Entities:
Keywords: FCR; Litopenaeus vannamei; Tenebrio molitor; Vibrio parahaemolyticus; fish meal replacement; growth performances; immunity; insect meal; yellow mealworm
Year: 2019 PMID: 31117249 PMCID: PMC6563494 DOI: 10.3390/ani9050258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Yellow mealworm meal (ŸnMealTM) proximate composition (% Dry Weight).
| Nutritional Composition | |
|---|---|
| Moisture (%) | 3.9 |
| Crude Protein (%) | 74.8 |
| Crude Fat (%) | 12.6 |
| Crude Fiber (%) | 4.7 |
| Ash (%) | 2.8 |
Experimental diets formulation and proximate composition (% Dry Weight).
| Experimental Diets | Control | YM25 | YM50 | YM75 | YM100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Fish meal 61% CP, Tuna | 25 | 18.75 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 0 |
| Soybean | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
| Wheat gluten | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Squid liver powder | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Wheat flour | 26.7 | 26.55 | 26.65 | 26.15 | 27.15 |
| Yellow Mealworm meal | 0 | 5.2 | 10.3 | 15.4 | 20.5 |
| Tuna fish oil | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Soya oil | 1 | 0.85 | 0.75 | 0.65 | 0.55 |
| Soy lecithin | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Lysine | 0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Methionine | 0 | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.15 | 0.2 |
| Monocalcium phosphate | 0 | 1.2 | 2.2 | 3.3 | 4.5 |
| Lime stone/oyster shell | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 |
| Binder | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 |
| Vitamin premix * | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
|
| 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
|
| |||||
| Moisture (%) | 9.38 | 8.82 | 8.75 | 9.02 | 9.45 |
| Protein (%) | 35.30 | 35.66 | 35.73 | 36.39 | 36.37 |
| Lipid (%) | 7.18 | 7.16 | 7.18 | 7.06 | 7.06 |
| Fiber (%) | 2.86 | 2.86 | 2.85 | 2.79 | 2.78 |
| Ash (%) | 8.25 | 8.02 | 7.35 | 6.65 | 6.03 |
| Energy (MJ/kg) | 18.72 | 18.56 | 18.45 | 18.27 | 18.09 |
* Composition of the Vitamin premix: Choline chloride (50%) 0.3%, StayC 0.5%, DSM2050 0.2%, anti-oxidant 0.1%, Anti-mold 0.1%, Mold inhibitor 0.2%, Diluent 0.2%; AOAC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.
Growth, feed intake, and use, as well as mortality rates, among different fishmeal replacement diets (n = 6).
| Experimental Diet | Control | YM25 | YM50 | YM75 | YM100 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fish meal replacement (%) | 0 | 25 | 50 | 75 | 100 | L | Q | C |
| Final biomass (g/tank) | 63.767a (3.192) | 72.217ab (4.123) | 79.0b (3.598) | 78.55b (2.861) | 71.617ab (3.067) | 0.047 | 0.005 | 0.652 |
| Initial body weight (g/ind) | 1.60a (0.051) | 1.50a (0.090) | 1.60a (0.042) | 1.66a (0.052) | 1.46a (0.025) | 0.481 | 0.250 | 0.012 |
| Final body weight (g/ind) | 5.542a (0.166) | 6.432ab (0.435) | 6.871b (0.291) | 6.649b (0.238) | 6.226ab (0.219) | 0.085 | 0.004 | 0.780 |
| Weight gain (g/ind) | 3.940a (0.168) | 4.933b (0.401) | 5.271b (0.276) | 4.986b (0.232) | 4.768ab (0.213) | 0.052 | 0.005 | 0.396 |
| ADG (g/ind/day) | 0.07a (0.003) | 0.088b (0.007) | 0.094b (0.005) | 0.089b (0.004) | 0.085ab (0.004) | 0.052 | 0.005 | 0.396 |
| SGR (%/d) | 2.217a (0.07) | 2.593b (0.129) | 2.597b (0.072) | 2.473ab (0.07) | 2.588b (0.058) | 0.025 | 0.046 | 0.027 |
| Daily feed intake (g/ind/d) | 0.11a (0.006) | 0.114a (0.008) | 0.112a (0.005) | 0.115a (0.005) | 0.112a (0.005) | 0.807 | 0.696 | 0.993 |
| PER | 1.796a (0.161) | 2.135a (0.148) | 2.328a (0.143) | 2.117a (0.105) | 2.057a (0.08) | 0.230 | 0.020 | 0.475 |
| FCR | 1.588b (0.13) | 1.32ab (0.088) | 1.203a (0.076) | 1.304ab (0.07) | 1.321ab (0.052) | 0.051 | 0.020 | 0.390 |
| Mortality rate (%) | 0.233a (0.045) | 0.244a (0.0453) | 0.233a (0.0446) | 0.211a (0.043) | 0.233a (0.0446) | 0.812 | 0.943 | 0.635 |
The data means with the same letters within rows were not significantly different (p > 0.05.) The data’ standard error of the mean (SEM) are presented in parentheses. L, Q, and C stand for linear, quadratic, and cubic contrasts, respectively. ADG: average daily gain; SGR: specific growth rate; FCR: feed conversion ratio; PER: protein efficiency ratio.
Figure 1Cumulative mortality as a function of ŸnMealTM (YM) dietary level on Day 10 after immune challenge with Vibrio parahaemolyticus (n = 30).
Mortality as a function of dietary insect meal (YM) levels.
| Variable | Coefficient | SE | Df |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mortality | |||||
| Intercept | −0.213 | 0.353 | - | - | |
| Dietary YM Level | −0.041 | 0.019 | 1 | 4.585 | 0.032 |
| Dietary YM Level2 | 2.53 × 10−4 | 1.97 × 10−4 | 1 | 1.634 | 0.201 |
Generalized linear model with binomial error distribution and logit link; response equation: ; p = cumulative probability of dying; Dietary YM Level (DYML) = Percentage of FM replaced by Ynsect Meal; test statistic for Likelihood-ratio test.
Figure 2Immune status of the shrimp before and after bacterial challenge. (A) Phenoloxidase (B) Total hemocyte counts (C) hemolymph protein (D) persistent bacterial numbers in hemolymph 3 h after the bacterial challenge. Confidence bands for each fitted line correspond to one SEM (n = 3).
Different immunological responses as a function of bacterial challenge status and dietary YM level.
| Variable | Coefficient | SE | Df |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Intercept | 5248 | 673.9 | - | ||
| Dietary YM Level | 27.4 | 11.0 | 1 | 53.883 | 2.128 ×10−13 |
| Status: challenged | −3735 | 819.5 | 1 | 70.104 | 2.2 × 10−16 |
| Dietary YM Level × Status: challenged | −4.5 | 13.4 | 1 | 0.115 | 0.7348 |
|
| |||||
| Intercept | 1.073 | 0.064 | - | ||
| Dietary YM Level | 0.003 | 0.001 | 1 | 14.136 | 1.7 × 10−4 |
| Status: challenged | −0.088 | 0.021 | 1 | 117.933 | 2.2 × 10−16 |
| Dietary YM Level x Status: challenged | −0.001 | 3.5 × 10−4 | 1 | 6.949 | 8.4 × 10−3 |
|
| |||||
| Intercept | 4.796 | 0.668 | - | ||
| Dietary YM Level | 0.014 | 0.011 | 1 | 4.832 | 2.8 × 10−2 |
| Status: challenged | 1.373 | 0.559 | 1 | 3.054 | 8.1 × 10−2 |
| Dietary YM Level x Status: challenged | −0.039 | 0.009 | 1 | 18.018 | 2.2 × 10−5 |
|
| |||||
| Intercept | 4.359 | 0.058 | - | ||
| Dietary YM Level | −0.007 | 0.001 | 1 | 47.865 | 4.6 × 10−12 |
Generalized Least Squares Model:; Status: challenged (1) and pre-challenged (0). Dietary YM Level (DYML) = Percentage of FM replaced by Ynsect Meal; Test statistic for Type II Wald Chi-square test.