| Literature DB >> 35743919 |
Abdallah Tageldein Mansour1,2,3, Ola A Ashry4, Mohamed Ashour5, Ahmed Saud Alsaqufi1,2, Khaled M A Ramadan1,6,7, Zaki Z Sharawy5.
Abstract
A biofloc technology-based 75-day indoor growth trial in an 80 L glass aquaria was conducted to evaluate the effects of two different carbon sources (sugarcane bagasse, SB, and wheat flour, WF) on the biofloc composition, bacterial abundance, and growth of whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) juveniles (0.23 ± 0.04 g). Three different levels of dietary protein content (250, 300, and 350 g protein kg-1 diet) and two carbon sources (SB and WF) were applied (SB250, WF250, SB300, WF300, SB350, and WF350, respectively), comparing to a controlled diet without biofloc and fed on a 450 g protein kg-1 diet (C450). With the addition of SB and WF, water quality was in the ideal recommended ranges for L. vannamei culture. At the end of the experiment, the biofloc volume increased with increasing dietary protein levels. The nutritional value of biofloc in different treatments was influenced by dietary protein and added SB and WF. Increasing dietary protein significantly increased the protein and lipid contents of the produced biofloc. The use of WF as a carbon source significantly increased lipids and nitrogen-free extract in the biofloc. The total heterotrophic bacterial (THB) count was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in WF300 and WF350 than in the other treatments. The mean effect of the protein levels and carbon source was significantly reported, whereas the highest significant THB count was recorded with 300 dietary protein and using WF as a carbon source. The growth performances of L. vannamei fed with biofloc treatments were significantly (p < 0.05) higher than the C450 group. The highest final weight and weight gain were recorded in SB350 treatment. The feed conversion ratio was not affected by reducing dietary protein levels; meanwhile, the protein efficiency ratio increased significantly in biofloc treatments than in the control. Overall, the results demonstrate that, compared to the control treatment of 450 dietary protein, the biofloc treatments using WF as a carbon source could compensate for the reduction in the dietary protein levels in the diet of L. vannamei and maintain higher zootechnical performance.Entities:
Keywords: biofloc quality; crustacean farming; protein requirement; total heterotrophic bacteria; zero-water exchange
Year: 2022 PMID: 35743919 PMCID: PMC9228149 DOI: 10.3390/life12060888
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Life (Basel) ISSN: 2075-1729
Ingredients and proximate composition of the experimental diets (g kg−1).
| Ingredients | Experimental Diets (g Protein kg−1 Diet) | Control Diet | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 250 | 300 | 350 | ||
| Fish meal | 90 | 270 | 270 | 450 |
| Soybean meal | 330 | 230 | 330 | 330 |
| Yellow corn | 280 | 250 | 205 | 90 |
| Wheat bran | 195 | 155 | 100 | 45 |
| Fish oil | 60 | 50 | 50 | 40 |
| Cholesterol | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Di-calcium phosphate | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Vitamin and minerals 1 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Proximate analysis (g kg−1) | ||||
| Dry matter | 893.5 | 899.6 | 901.8 | 906 |
| Crude protein | 256.2 | 319.6 | 352.1 | 451.7 |
| Crude lipid | 71.8 | 92.6 | 89.3 | 81.2 |
| Ash content | 78.1 | 81.2 | 90.1 | 112.3 |
| Crude fiber | 49.8 | 39.3 | 39.8 | 33.8 |
| Nitrogen-free extract 2 | 544.1 | 467.3 | 428.7 | 321 |
| Gross energy (MJ kg−1 diet) 3 | 18.70 | 19.22 | 19.20 | 19.38 |
1 Vitamin premix (mg or IU kg−1 diet): vitamin A, 6000 IU; vitamin D3, 2000 IU; ascorbic acid, 200 mg; vitamin E, 50 mg; menadione, 5 mg; thiamine, 15 mg; riboflavin, 15 mg; nicotinic acid, 30 mg; pantothenic acid, 35 mg; pyridoxine HCl, 6 mg; cyanocobalamin, 0.03 mg; biotin, 0.2 mg; inositol, 200 mg; folic acid, 3 mg; iodine, 0.4 mg; cobalt, 0.1 mg; copper, 4 mg; iron, 150 mg; zinc, 80 mg; manganese, 20 mg; selenium, 0.1 mg; magnesium, 100 mg. 2 Nitrogen-free extract (%) = 100 − (crude protein + ether extract + crude fiber + ash). 3 Gross energy (MJ kg−1) = (crude protein × 23.6 + ether extract × 39.5 + Nitrogen-free extract × 17.2)/100.
Biochemical compositions and organic carbon content (g kg−1) of used carbon sources.
| Carbon Sources | Total | Total | Total | Nitrogen-Free Extract | Ash | Fiber |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sugarcane bagasse | 395 ± 2.1 | 15.2 ± 0.1 | 15.3 ± 0.1 | 244 ± 0.3 | 76 ± 0.2 | 650 ± 2.1 |
| Wheat flour | 411 ± 1.1 | 122 ± 0.3 | 12.5 ± 0.2 | 812 ± 11 | 41.5 ± 0.2 | 13 ± 0.2 |
Figure 1Mean effect of dietary protein levels and carbon sources on some water quality parameters of whiteleg shrimp L. vannamei juveniles reared in water. (A) Total ammonia nitrogen, (B) total suspended solids, (C) nitrate, and (D) nitrite. Different letters indicate significantly different values (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Effect of dietary protein levels and carbon sources on biofloc volume of whiteleg shrimp, L. vannamei, juveniles reared in water. (A) Mean effects of protein levels and carbon source, (B) interaction effect of protein levels and carbon source, and (C) biweekly in biofloc development. Presented data are means ± SD (n = 3). Different letters in the same week indicate significantly different values (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Mean effect of dietary protein levels and carbon sources on biofloc proximate chemical composition of whiteleg shrimp, L. vannamei, juveniles reared in water. (A) Protein content, (B) lipid content, (C) nitrogen-free-extract content, and (D) ash content. Presented data are means ± SD (n = 3). Different letters indicate significantly different values (p < 0.05).
Effect of dietary protein levels and carbon sources on nutritional value (g kg−1) of the biofloc produced in biofloc treatments.
| Protein Levels (g kg−1) | Control (450) * | 250 | 300 | 350 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Sources | SB | WF | SB | WF | SB | WF | Protein Levels | Carbon Source | Interaction | |
| Protein | – | 432.20 ± 13.00 b | 426.30 ± 18.50 c | 467.80 ± 17.70 a | 463.80 ± 15.20 a | 479.80 ± 15.60 a | 471.6 ± 16.30 a | 0.001 | 0.436 | 0.972 |
| Lipid | – | 23.00 ± 0.10 b | 19.80 ± 0.30 c | 26.00 ± 0.20 b | 32.00 ± 0.10 a | 28.00 ± 0.30 a | 31.00 ± 0.40 a | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Nitrogen-free extract | – | 303.50 ± 13.30 a | 324.90 ± 19.00 a | 274.80 ± 15.10 c | 312.40 ± 13.6 b | 290.30 ± 15.50 b | 285.50 ± 12.80 b | 0.028 | 0.026 | 0.090 |
| Ash | – | 241.3 ± 7.80 a | 229.00 ± 9.90 a | 231.40 ± 8.40 a | 191.80 ± 6.30 b | 201.90 ± 6.90 b | 211.90 ± 8.80 c | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Means (mean ± SD) in the same row having superscript differ significantly (p < 0.05); two-way ANOVA significant at p < 0.05. * The data of residues collected from control tanks are excluded, however they do not represent any importance to the study. Means with different letters is significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Effect of dietary protein levels and carbon sources on the total heterotrophic bacterial count in experimental tanks’ water. Presented data are means ± SD (n = 3). (A) Mean effect of protein levels and carbon source, and (B) interaction effect. Column bearing different letters is significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Mean effect of dietary protein levels and carbon sources on growth performance and feed utilization of whiteleg shrimp, L. vannamei, juveniles. (A) Final weight, (B) weight gain, (C) specific growth rate, (D) feed conversion ratio, (E) protein efficiency ratio, and (F) survival. Presented data are means ± SD (n = 3). Different letters indicate significantly different values (p < 0.05).
Growth indicators of whiteleg shrimp, L. vannamei, juveniles fed with different protein levels for the experimental period (75 days).
| Protein Levels (g kg−1) | Control | 250 | 300 | 350 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Sources | SB | WF | SB | WF | SB | WF | Protein Levels | Carbon Source | Interaction | |
| FBW | 6.83 ± 0.04 d | 6.35 ± 0.02 e | 7.31 ± 0.01 c | 6.37 ± 0.07 e | 6.80 ± 0.02 d | 8.83 ± 0.03 a | 8.55 ± 0.07 b | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| WG | 6.60 ± 0.04 d | 6.12 ± 0.02 e | 7.08 ± 0.01 c | 6.14 ± 0.07 e | 6.57 ± 0.02 d | 8.60 ± 0.03 a | 8.32 ± 0.07 b | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| SGR | 4.52 ± 0.01 | 4.43 ± 0.01 | 4.61 ± 0.01 | 4.43 ± 0.02 | 4.52 ± 0.01 | 4.86 ± 0.01 | 4.82 ± 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.10 |
| PER | 1.52 ± 0.01 e | 2.54 ± 0.01 b | 2.92 ± 0.01 a | 2.12 ± 0.01 d | 2.26 ± 0.01 c | 2.52 ± 0.01 b,c | 2.44 ± 0.01 b | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| FCR | 1.30 ± 0.36 | 1.09 ± 0.11 | 0.97 ± 0.09 | 1.25 ± 0.34 | 1.03 ± 0.09 | 0.93 ± 0.08 | 1.17 ± 0.32 | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.11 |
| SR | 93.94 ± 3.32 a | 87.88 ± 5.92 c | 90.91 ± 4.57 b | 93.97 ± 5.74 a | 90.91 ± 6.55 b | 90.91 ± 4.57 b | 93.97 ± 3.45 a | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Means (mean ± SD) in the same row have superscripts that differ significantly (p < 0.05); two-way ANOVA significant at p < 0.05. FBW: final body weight (g), WG: weight gain (g), SGR: specific growth rate (% day−1), FCR: feed conversion ratio, PER: protein efficiency ratio, and SR: survival rate (%). Means with different letters is significantly different (p < 0.05).