PRECISION FEEDING OF

AQUACULTURE SPECIES
REARED UNDER
INTENSIVE CONDITIONS

DOMINIQUE P. BUREAU
PROFESSOR , UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER, WITTAYA AQUA
Precision Aquaculture Nutrition

Precision nutrition (or precision feed formulation) involves optimizing the digestible
nutrient contents of feed to support optimal production performance, product quality,
production efficiency and profitability while minimizing waste outputs and environmental
impacts (Yuru, 2020)

Precision feeding is the process of delivering the appropriate amount of feed in an

appropriate manner to support optimal production performance, product quality,
production efficiency and profitability while minimizing waste outputs and environmental
impacts
Feeding Time on Freshwater Rainbow Trout Culture Operation in Canada

Challenges

Environmental Variability and Stewardship Issues

Remote Area = up to 5 km offshore

Very expensive feed (USD 1000-1600/t)

Low tech equipment & practices

Poorly skilled or
Family-owned business
“problem” field
workers

Fish Crop/ Inventory Difficult to Measure

Fish crop
Witnessed many of
the same challenges
and issues at large-
scale tilapia net-pen
farms in Lake Toba,
Indonesia
Farm-Reported Economical FCR of a Freshwater Omnivorous Fish
Species in Indonesia
2.50 Formulations
2.30 A B C D E F
2.10

1.90

1.70
eFCR

1.50

1.30

1.10

0.90

0.70

0.50
40500 40590 40680 40770 40860 40950 41040 41130 41220 41310 41400
Harvest Date
 Farm-Reported Economical FCR of a Freshwater Omnivorus Fish Species
in Indonesia – Most Feeds Supported Similar eFCR
2.50 Formulations
2.30 A B C D E F
2.10
Feed FCR
1.90 F:G
1.70 A 1.29
1.50 B 1.24
eFCR

1.30 C 1.30
1.10 D 1.35
E 1.22
0.90
F 1.27
0.70

0.50
40500 40590 40680 40770 40860 40950 41040 41130 41220 41310 41400
Harvest Date
Feed Composition and Quality Poorly Explained Differences in Performance

1.60 3.5
1.55 3.0
1.50

ADG (g fish/day)
2.5
eFCR (Feed:Gain)

1.45
2.0
1.40
Discrepancy 1.5
1.35
1.30 1.0

1.25 0.5
1.20 0.0
25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0
Crude Protein (%)
 2.50
Formulations
2.30 A B C D E F
2.10

1.90

1.70
50th percentile
eFCR

1.50
FCR = 1.33
1.30

1.10 10th percentile

Realistic target
FCR = 1.13
0.90

0.70

0.50
40500 40590 40680 40770 40860 40950 41040 41130 41220 41310 41400
Harvest Date
Scope for Improvement:
The “average” farm could reduce feed usage by 200 kg/t of fish produced!
Supporting the Users - Aquaculture Producers

What is the point of making high quality, high consistent, feeds if it is not
properly used?

Evidences suggests that performances and efficiency of feed utilization vary

greatly across farms and production lots

Issue is often not feed quality but rather several other factors (feeding
management, water quality, pathogens, feed wastage, etc.)

Remember that your clients’ success is your success

AquaOp : Creating a Digital Eco-System Linking Farms and Feeds

Feed Ingredients Feed Formulation and Animals Performance at

Composition and Quality nutritional Specifications the Farm
FCR of Nile Tilapia as a Function of Survival Across
Production Lots

Survival has a very significant impact on feed conversion ratio!

 Estimated Animal Inventory – Farm Often Have a Very Poor
Estimates of their Animal Inventory in Ponds or Cages
200000

180000

160000

140000

120000
Inventory

100000

80000 Farm Reported Inventory

60000 Wittaya Aqua Algorithm

40000 Implicitely calculated by farm
20000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Days of Culture
Different Estimates of Inventory =
Different estimates of feed intake per animal, different estimates of
biological FCR, etc.
 FCR of Tilapia Produced on Different Aquaculture Operations
(using the same commercial feeds)

3.00 Economical Feed Conversion Ratio : Feed (as is) / Gain (wet)

FCR (Feed:Gain) 2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00
Better water quality Poorer water quality
0.50 conditions conditions

-
Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13
Harvest Date
• Water Quality Can Have a Profound Impact on Growth, Feed Requirement and FCR
• Are the poor FCR seen during periods of poorer water quality due to Inefficiency of
animals or due to feed wastage?
Simulation of Growth of a Marine Fish as Function of Dissolved Oxygen
Levels
7000 10
BW- DO = 5 ppm/l 9
6000
BW- DO = Variable 8

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Sample Weight
5000
Live weight (g/fish)

Oxygen 7
6
4000
5
3000
4

2000 3
2
1000
1
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Days of Culture (DOC)
Model Estimated Feed Requirement vs. Feed Served
1.0
0.9 Feed Served g/animal
0.8 Feed Intake Model Est. g/animal
Feed g/shrimp/day

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Days of Culture

• Feed intake of animals reared in sub-optimal water quality will typically drop significantly
Growth Trajectory Based on Growth Potential vs. Achievable on the
Basis of Feed Intake of the Animals
30

25
Sample Weight
20 SWA Model
Feed Input Model
BW g

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Days of Culture

• The reduced feed intake of animals reared in sub-optimal water quality will support lower
growth rates
The Use of Floating Feed Doesn’t Necessarily Prevent Feed Wastage

How can we better manage

or guide the employees
feeding the fish?

Environmental conditions,
feed composition are all
highly variable and result in
variable growth performances

Need flexible but accurate

tools
Observed and predicted evolution of feed conversion ratio (feed:gain)
of Nile tilapia during a pilot-scale trial

1.40
FCR (Observed)
1.20
FCR (Predicted)

1.00

0.80
FCR

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
21 42 56 77 98 119 140 161 182 203 224 245
Days
Growth Trajectory of Nile Tilapia vs. an Industry Benchmark

• Wittaya Aqua models adjust to the actual growing conditions to generate

dynamic and accurate estimates of live weight, inventory and biomass
within each production lot
Feed Served to Nile Tilapia vs. Amounts Estimated Using Wittaya
Aqua Model

Wittaya Aqua model predicts a theoretical daily amount of feed required

by the fish

This amount can be used as a dynamic guidelines by employees feeding

the animals
Conclusion
• Significant variations across farms and production lots in terms of efficiency of feed
utilization

• Variations in feed quality appears to be a minor factor and cannot explain vast
differences in feed conversion ratio observed

• Environmental conditions and factors affecting the health of the animals appear to
explain the bulk of the variation in FCR observed

• There is a need to better understand the factors that influence growth and
efficiency of feed utilization

• Better production and feeding management practices and tools are needed and
are now commercially available
 Thank you!

While the U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC) does not guarantee the forecasts or statements of USSEC Staff or Contractors, we have taken care in
selecting them to represent our organization. We believe they are knowledgeable and their presentations and opinions will provide listeners with detailed
information and valuable insights into the U.S. Soy and U.S. Ag Industry. We welcome further questions and always encourage listeners to seek a wide
array of opinions before making any financial decisions based on the information presented. Accordingly, USSEC will not accept any liability stemming from
the information contained in this presentation.
1
FIFO

2
FIFO

3
Raw material
sustainability
Plant Origin
• Improve soil health and biodiversity
• Less or no pesticide
• Conserve water and soil
• Crop rotation
• Energy use and green house gas emission

Animal Origin
• Fishery improvement program (“A” rated)
• By-products
• Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

4
Raw material
sustainability

By 2025, U.S. soybean farmers

aim to:

• Reduce land use impact by

10%
• Reduce soil erosion an
additional 25%
• Increase energy use efficiency
by 10%
• And reduce total greenhouse
gas emissions by 10%

5
Indian Standards

6
 Soybean meal sustainability

http://www.soyfoods.org/good-for-the-planet/soy-and-sustainability
7
Responsible sourcing

8
Unsustainable Practice

9
FIFO

10
Practical Formulation

R&D

In/outdoor
Analysis Wet-lab Commercial
ponds

Balance (cost vs Commercial

Explore performance) product

Screen Best formula

Particle size reduction
Feed has evolved

13
Crumble vs Pellet

14
 Feed has evolved

Gelatinization Poor Average Good

Dusts More Moderate Very less
Water stability Moderate Good Excellent
Microbial load High Moderate Less

15
Vacuum coating – efficacy in fat delivery

16
 A feed that makes fish faeces float??

Scanning electron microscope images of (a) an individual cork Quercus suber particle (Amorim) and (b) cork granules embedded in a feed pellet after extrusion.
17
James Wright, 2017, GAA
FIFO

18
Feed Selection – habits, Zones, stage etc

19
One size does not fit all

20
FIFO

21
Unsustainable practices

22
 Demand (Pendulum) Feeder

23
Courtesy: Aquatech, Austria
Sprinkler type auto feeder

Courtesy: A Victor Suresh

24
Aerospreader

Courtesy: IAS Products 25

Acoustic auto feeder

Courtesy: Eruvaka and AQ1 System 26

Survival and Biomass Estimation

27
FIFO

28
Data flow - end to end

Water C P N S

DATA

29
30
THANK YOU
QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF
AQUA FEED INGREDIENTS

22nd February 2023

Ms. Latha S.
CPF (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED
 CPF AT A GLANCE
No. 1 animal feed
producer in the
world
Delivers traceable and Environmentally
friendly food products from Farm to Fork
Our Businessess

 Feed

 Farm and processing

CPF operates in 17 countries and Exports to  Food
more than 40 countries across 5 Continents
 Food & Retail outlets
CPF INDIA MILESTONE
 CPF INDIA BUSINESS
Feed

Export Seed

Farm Probiotic
CPF SHRIMP CULTURE MODEL
CPF SHRIMP CULTURE MODEL
 CPF SHRIMP CULTURE MODEL

Shrimp culture Successful with

sustainable profit

- CPF smart farm

- Higher ADG, Lower FCR

- Biosecurity
Quality Assessment

‘‘QUALITY FEED COMES FROM

QUALITY INGREDIENTS’’
 Quality
Quality has been defined as

Conforming to a Standard specification

Meeting statutory and Regulatory requirements
Fulfilling customer expectations
 Quality Assessment
Quality of feed ingredients are tested by evaluation methods
Biological
Protein Digestibility

Chemical Antinutritional
Proximate composition Trypsin, Phytic acid, etc.
(essential nutrients)

Physical 03 Food Safety

02 04
Smell / Colour / Mycotoxins/Antibiotics/
Pesticides/Heavy metal
Admixture
01 05 Pathogens
 Compliances

S R C
STATUTORY REGULATORY CERTIFICATIONS

Andhra Pradesh
animal feed act 2020
 Aqua feed ingredient selection

Primary Requirements

1. Targeted animals and Essential Nutrients

requirements(species, size, etc)

2. Suitable Raw materials to support these

Nutritional requirements

3. Nutrient composition & Digestibility

4. Culture performance / Customer satisfaction

 Feed Ingredients Selection
Nutritional Non nutritional
Proximate composition Price
Amino acid profile Market availability
Fatty acid profile Physical characteristics
Energy content Food laws and regulations
Mineral content Sustainability ( labour practice, Non
Vitamin content IUU FM
Anti-nutritional factors Market acceptability
Nutrient digestibility Non GMO
 Less reliance on capture fisheries
 Nutritional Source
Ingredients used for aqua culture feed Protein, is the major component in the
shrimp diets. Essential Amino acids
 Protein from Animal & Plant

 Oil (DHA, EPA) Fatty acids that are essential for growth,
feed conversion are poly unsaturated
 Carbohydrates and highly unsaturated fatty acids
(HUFA)Essential Fatty Acids
 Micronutrients-Minerals, Vitamins etc.

 Functional feed additives (Boost immunity)

 Ingredients Source
Animal Plant
• Soybean meal
• Fishmeal • Rape seed meal

• All other fish products • Wheat and Wheat products

• Broken rice
• Squid meal
• Maize and Maize products
• Krill meal • Rice bran

• Fish oil • Wheat bran

• Soybean lecithin
 Assessment of Feed Ingredients
Quality Control of feed ingredients is done as below

1. Qualitative or Physical Evaluation

2. Quantitative or Nutritional Evaluation

3. Biological assessment

4. Anti Nutritional Factors (ANFs)

5. Food Safety
 1. Qualitative or Physical Evaluation

Sensory analysis
• Colour, dispersibility, texture
• Odor (Good,burnt rotten, rancid)
• Taste (Sweet, sour, bitter)
 1. Qualitative or Physical Evaluation

1. Microscopy
2. Quick test

Admixtures & Adulterant:

- Feather meal / Hairs /

Urea, melamine
- Sand-silica
- Plant stem /Husk & Hull
2. Quantitative or Nutritional Evaluation

Feed Ingredients

-Fiber
 3. Biological Assessment
1.Digestibility

• Digestibility of feed ingredients depends on sources

• Animal: High digestibility except those processed by using high

temperature

• Plant: Lower digestibility , contain fiber which impedes digestive enzyme

activity and nutrient absorption

• 2. Bioavailability (Absorption , Utilization)

Production process conditions

 4. Anti-Nutritional Factors (ANFs)
Anti Nutritional factors (ANFs) are substances in feed ingredients that interfere with
food utilization and affect animal health and production performance.

Anti Nutrients can be broadly divided into

different Groups

1. Factors affecting protein Utilization and digestion (Protease,

Trypsin, etc.)

2. Factors affecting mineral utilization (Phytates, Gossypol,

Glucosinolates etc.)

3. Antivitamins
 5. Food Safety Conform to EU regulaton, internatonal
standard

Any substance or product, Heavy Metals

present in or on the product
intended for animal feed which
presents a potential danger to
human health or animal health

Mycotoxin
 CPF
Quality Assessment

Quality control throughout supply chain’’

 Quality Control Ingredient
Auto Sampling

Auto Inspection
Quality Control System
Warehouse Management
• First in First out

• Labelling

• Ventilation, Temp,
RH

• Insect and pest

control
Production
CONTROL
ROOM

AUTO
PACKING

FG Warehouse
 Quality Assessments for Raw Material
Physical Chemical Food Admixture Others
Safety

- Odor - Moisture - Mycotoxins - Feather - TVBN

Fish meal - Freshness - Protein - Heavy Metal - Urea - Antioxidant
- Texture - Fat - Melamine - Biogenic amine
- Odor - Moisture - Mycotoxins - Sand - Trypsin Inhibitors
Soybean
- Freshness - Protein - Pesticides - Urea
meal
- Texture - Fiber - Melamine
- Odor - Moisture - Mycotoxins - Other Oil - Antioxidant
Fish Oil - Impurity - Heavy metal
- Iodine Value
 Certifications
ISO ISO ISO
9001:2015 14001:2015 45001:2018
 Certifications
ISO ISO
22000:2018 BAP
17025:2017
 Our Strengths
Good Feed Ingredients
High Performance

Good QC / QA

Low FCR

Good Formulation

High ADG

Good Production
Least risk to fish & humans Long-term sustainable feeds
CPF Sustainability
 CPF 2030 Sustainability Strategy
.
3 Pillars

Food Security Self-Sufficient Society Balance of Nature

Climate, Water & Waste

Sustainable Food Human Rights
Excellence
Responsible Sourcing
Responsible Marketing Lifelong Learning
for the Planet

Animal Welfare Social Impact Waste to Value

CPF Sustainability & UN SDGs

CPF fully support UN SDGs, covering all of 17 goals

 Sustainability – CPF Commitments
CPF’s commitments for Fish meal

Promote the use of Fish meal from MarinTrust or Accepted FIPs

Commitments for Soybean meal

 Certified Products - RTRS

Commitments for Packaging

 Eco-Friendly Approach
 Comply with Packaging thickness regulation >80microns
 4 R Principles - Reduce, Recycle, Reuse, and Replace
 We have taken EPR License as per CPCB requirement
CPF Target to Carbon Neutral & NET-ZERO

CPG & CPF Target

“Carbon Neutral in 2030

(Cover Scope 1 and 2
emission)

NET ZERO in 2050

(Cover 7 types of GHG and
Scope1,2,3)
Thank you
Mycotoxin Risk Management
in Aquaculture

Swamy Haladi, PhD

Global Technical Manager, Nutreco

USSEC, Hyderabad, 22/02/2023

Few questions around mycotoxins in aquaculture??

• Is this an economic problem?

• How do we know?

• What tools can help us?

• What are the challenges in diagnosis?

• What are the challenges in the research?

• What best we can do to manage?

Examples of Indian Fish and Shrimp Feeds
Ingredient % Inclusion Ingredient % Inclusion
DORB 25 Fish meal 10
Soybean meal 30 MBM 5
Rapeseed meal 10 Shrimp head meal 10
Maida 9 Jawala (dry shrimp) 5
Maize 10 Fish oil 2
3
MBM 12 Soybean meal 35
Maida 10
Total animal origin: 12%
Total plant origin: 84% Broken rice 15
Corn Gluten Meal 5
Vegetable oil 1.5

Total animal origin: 32%

Total plant origin: 66.5%
The change of the aqua feed nutrient source

• Plant proteins (SBM)  binding

capacity, starch
• Plant by-products are cheaper  e.g.
DDGS
• Plant ingredients  feed borne
mycotoxin contamination
4

Fish meal Plant protein meal Mycotoxin Challenge

• Integrated mycotoxin risk management

 What are mycotoxins?

• Secondary metabolites produced by various molds.

• More than 80% of agricultural commodities are contaminated.

• Some of them are produced in the field and some

during storage. Highly stable.

• They can be produced in grains, protein sources and

by-products.

Zhang et al., 2020

Major mycotoxin-producing moulds

Penicillium mold Fusarium graminearum

Aspergillus mold

Fusarium graminearum
Fusarium miniloforme
 Mycotoxins

Fusarium Aspergillus Penicillium

Ergot toxins
toxins toxins toxins
• Aflatoxins • Ochratoxins • Ergovaline
• Ochratoxins • Citrinin • Ergocryptine
• Cyclopiazonic acid • PR Toxin • Ergotamine
• Sterigmatocystin • Patulin 7

• Fumitremorgens • Penicillic acid

Non-
Trichothecenes • Fumitoxins • Roquefortine C
Trichothecenes
• Gliotoxin • Mycophenolic acid
• DAS • Zearalenone
• Deoxynivalenol • Fumonisins
• Nivalenol • Moniliformin
• T-2 Toxin • Fusaric acid
Mycotoxin “carry-over” effects in fish

Mycotoxin Species Reference

African catfish Suzy et al. 2017

Abdel Rahman et al. 2017

Ayat et al. 2013
Deng et al. 2010
Hessein et al. 2014, 2017
Nile Tilapia Mahfouz & Sherif 2015
AFLA Salem et al. 2009
Selim et al. 2014
Usanno et al. 2005
8

Boonyaratpalin et al. 2001

Black Tiger Shrimp Bintvihok et al. 2009
Bautista et al. 1994

Black Tiger Shrimp Supamattaya et al. 2005 b

Common Carp Pietsch et al. 2014

DON
Grass Carp Huang et al. 2018
Trigo-Stockli et ql. 2000
White Leg Shrimp Deng et al. 2017 Gonçalves et al. (2018):
Reviews in Aquaculture, 1–31
OTA Black Tiger Shrimp Supamattaya et al. 2005a, b

ZEA Common Carp Pietsch et al, 2015

Mycotoxin risk in aqua spieces

Mycotoxins in fish & shrimp Symptoms

• Carcinogenic
AFLA • Decreased hematocrit
• Dermatotoxic
blood values
• Adverse reproductive
DON • Hepatotoxic effects
• Kidney & liver damage
• Carcinogenic
• Pale gills
FUM • Neurotoxic 9
• Embryo toxicity with
• Hepatotoxic
severe skeletal
• Carcinogenic deformities T-2 mycotoxin @ 1000 – 2000 ppb caused severe
OTA • Reduced hatching rates
• Nephrotoxic degeneration of hepatopancreas tissue of white leg and
• Reduced feed intake black tiger shrimp
• Poor growth performance
T2HT2 • Dermatotoxic • Immunosuppression
Encarnação, P. (2008):
https://en.engormix.com/mycotoxins/articles/mycotoxins-overlooked-threat-
• Oxidative stress shrimp-t34127.htm
ZEA • Estrogenic • Increased mortality

https://www2.biomin.net/fr/blog-posts/mycotoxins-are-a-serious-threat-to-the-aquaculture-
industry/
Pietsch, C. (2020): Mycotoxin Research 36:41 - 62
Mycotoxin regulations in fish

EU Regulatory levels for fish Calculated mycotoxin tolerance levels

feed with 12% moisture for aquaculture species
Low risk High risk
Mycotoxin (ppb) Mycotoxin
(ppb)
AFB 10 – 20 AFLA 2 9
DON 5,000 – 12,000
DON 114 1,742
10,000 – 60,000
10
FUM
OTA 250 FUM 105 796
T2HT2 500 OTA 4 14
ZEA 1,000 – 3,000 T2HT2 32 215
Pietsch (2020): Mycotoxin Research 36:41 - 62 ZEA 18 496
Lowest concentration of mycotoxins causing an alteration to the
fish/shrimp compared to control group
(https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/L03634)
Which source of mycotoxins can I use for research?

Why?
1. Multiple mycotoxins
2. Unknown mycotoxins
Pure toxin
3. Masked mycotoxins 11

Fungal culture Natural contamination

USDA
Canada experience
India experience Swamy, 2020
Challenges in aqua mycotoxin research

• Sampling error of mycotoxin analysis

• Leaching of mycotoxins into water

• Non-uniform exposure to mycotoxins

• Mycotoxin interactions

• understanding the interaction between mycotoxins and diseases

10-Point System for Integrated Mycotoxin Management
Swamy, 2021

Pond management

Crop rotation
Fungicide use
Ploughing

Harvesting 13
Feed transportation

Raw material storage

Binder application Feed production RM transportation
Rapid Testing and Interpretation at feed mills
Nutriopt Mycotoxin Advisor

14
5 min analysis
AFLA, DON, FUM, OTA,
T2HT2, ZEA [ppb]

• Accept / reject feed raw materials

• Monitor feed raw materials before feed processing and know own mycotoxin risks
• Apply mycotoxin binder inclusion levels into finished feeds
• Know the real-time global, regional and local mycotoxin risks
Mycotoxin risk in feeds and raw materials (India, 2020)

Average Median Minimum Maximum Contamination

Mycotoxin (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (%)

Aflatoxins 28 15 0 150 92
15
Fumonisins 1249 800 0 6000 79

Ochratoxins 14 10 0 150 92

Zearalenone 28 26 0 64 57
% mycotoxin contamination in global aqua feeds
Distribution of mycotoxins in aqua feeds
Formulate aqua diets based on mycotoxin concentrations

• Grade batch of raw materials based on mycotoxin concentrations.

• All the ingredients in the feed must be analyzed for mycotoxins.

• Use the appropriate levels of inclusion of raw materials.

• By-products usually contain higher levels of mycotoxins than parent grains or seeds.

• Use practical guidance values on mycotoxins.

Mycotoxin Mitigation Product

Carcinog
enetic
1. Mycotoxin adsorption
Bioavailability

2. Gut wall protection 19

AFLA, T-2,
Oxidative OTA, FUM, Damage
stress DON, ZEA gut wall
…
3. Immunity modulation Remediation

4. Anti-oxidation
Suppress
immunity
 Take Home Message

• Increased use of plant-based raw materials in aqua feed, invariably increases

the threat of mycotoxin contamination of feed.
• Mycotoxins are fungal metabolites and are heat stable during feed processing.
• Different mycotoxins have different effects in aqua species all leading to poor 20

viability and performance.

• Rapid mycotoxin analysis is key for on-time mycotoxin risk management.
• Integrated mycotoxin risk management is the way to go.
Thank you. Happy to answer Questions?
“Enhancement of plant raw material
utilization in fish feed
formulations”

John Williamson MSc

Aquaculture - Importance and key
challenges
• Aquaculture is one of the most sustainable and
fastest growing food production sectors and
has great potential for ensuring future food
security for the world’s growing population.

• Key focus areas for aquaculture producers in

driving this “Blue Revolution” and
accelerating growth are:

• Widening the basket of cost-effective feed

ingredients

• Managing Cost and Environmental Sustainability

• Disease and parasite control whilst reducing the

use of medicines
 Widening the Basket of Ingredients
• Traditionally fishmeal has been the preferred source of protein for
Aquafeed

• Global capture fisheries and fishmeal production has been stagnating for
more than 30 years.
• Approximately 5 mmt of fishmeal is produced annually with ¾ going into
Aquaculture
• Growth in aquaculture and cost pressures have ensured fish feed
composition has shifted from fish-based ingredients to more plant-based
ingredients

3
Trends in Fish Feed Formulation
Development of raw materials in Norwegian
Salmon Feed
100%
90% 25% 18%
80% 34%
11%
70% 65% 17%
60%
50% 31%
40%
71%
30% 59%
20% 24%
35%
10%
11%
0%
1990 2000 2010 2021

Vegetable raw materials Fish Oil Fishmeal

4
Trends in Fish Feed Formulation
Raw material inclusion in different
aquaculture feeds (%)
100% 1%
15% 6%
20%
80% 4%
9% 7%

60% 22%
92%
40%
73%
49%
20%

0%
Seabass Shrimp Tilapia

Vegetable raw materials Land animal proteins Fish oil Fishmeal

5
 Antinutrients in plant-derived fish
feed ingredients
• An important limiting factor to the inclusion of
some vegetable ingredients in aquafeeds is the
presence of antinutrients and indigestible
carbohydrates.

• Anti-nutrients can be reduced by further

processing e,g dehulling, heat treatment,
ethanol extraction etc. and also during the feed
manufacturing process.

• Phytate or phytic acid is the principal storage

form of phosphorus in plant tissues and reduces
phosphorous availability. Phytate can also
complex with minerals and protein reducing their
digestibility.

• Non Starch Polysaccharides are an important

constituent of grains and cereals. They can
decrease feed intake and lower digestibility of
6
key nutrients and obstruct movement of digesta
Enzymes modes of action
• The 3 main Enzymes used in animal production are Protease,
Phytase and Xylanase

• Phytase - catalyses the hydrolysis of indigestible phytic

acid into organic phosphorus which is absorbed efficiently
presenting an opportunity to formulators to reduce cost.

7
 Enzyme modes of action
• Xylanase is an enzyme which breaks down non-starch
polysaccharides, one of the major components of plant cell
walls into fermentable sugars

• Xylanase has 3 Main modes of action

• Release of Nutrients through the breakdown of insoluble NSP
• Viscosity Reduction of the Digesta by the breakdown of soluble
fibre
• Pre-biotic effect of the breakdown of Arabinoxylans into the
prebiotic AXOS

8
Enzymes and Potential in
Aquaculture
• Huvepharma have undertaken 15 recent trials to demonstrate
the impact enzymes can play in supporting aquaculture growth
and development:

• Salmon Trials (x 3) - Optiphos

• Rainbow Trout Trials (x5) - Optiphos
• Shrimp (x2) – Optiphos, Hostazym X
• Carp (x3) – Hostazym X
• Tilapia (x1) – Optiphos
• Sea Bream (x1) - Optiphos

• Enzymes have a very important role to play in sustainable

aquaculture production, helping to improve growth
performance and reducing environmental pollution.

9
Effect of OptiPhos on the growth
performance of Rainbow Trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Huvepharma NV
Trial Set-up
• Location: University of Trás-Os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal

• Duration: 90 days (July-August)

• Fish: Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 11.7g

• Treatments
• (1) Positive control (1.08% Total P) 1.7% MCP supplemented
• 0.45 % phytate-P

• (2) Negative control (0.71% Total P) no MCP supplementation

• 0.45 % phytate-P

• (3,4,5) Negative control + OptiPhos® OTU/kg:

• 250
• 500
• 750
 Results – Growth Performance
Parameters OptiPhos® inclusion (OTU/kg)

Positive control Negative control 250 500 750

Body weight (g) 69.2c 58.0a 62.5b 66.1c 68.1c

SGR (%/d)* 1.98c 1.78a 1.86b 1.92c 1.96c

FCR 0.93 0.96 0.93 0.92 0.93

Whole-body P (% DM) 1.33b 1.10a 1.12a 1.29b 1.29b

Bone ash (% DM) 25.7b 20.6a 26.0b 26.4b 27.3b

P gain** (mg/kg BW/d) 62.0d 43.8a 47.7b 57.8c 61.2d

Faecal P losses (mg/kg BW/d) 71.1c 119.3e 89.8d 51.3b 34.1a

a,b: values in a column with different superscript are sign. diff P < 0.05
P retention, P and P-phytate
digestion
90
79.8 d
80

70 66.2c
d c
d 60.6 c
58.4 57.4
60 56.4
c

50 b 47.1 b bc
(%)

ab 44.4
a 42.9 43.5
a
39.8 39.4
40 a a
32.4
30.5 31.1
30

20

10

0
P retention (%) Apparent Dig. P (%) Apparent dig. Phytate-P (%)
Positive control Negative control OptiPhos® 250 OTU/kg OptiPhos® 500 OTU/kg OptiPhos® 750 OTU/kg

TB 45superscript
a,b: values in a column with different OptiPhos (OTU)
are sign. diff P < 0.05
OptiPhos®-Environmental impact
Phosphorus % Control OptiPhos®
feed 750
Total P in kg Ton/Feed 10.8 7.5

P Retained in fish % 38.5 60.8

Excreted to waste % 61.5 39.2

Discharge to Environment 6.64 2.94

kg/MT

Excreted Reduction v Control 0 36.26

10,000Mt feed, saving in P 0 37

(Mt)

14
Effect of OptiPhos on the
growth performance of Tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus)

Huvepharma NV
Trial set-up
• Location: Sparos, Portugal.
• Duration: 93 days.
• Fish: Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)

• Treatments
• (1) Negative control (0.98% Total P, Av P 0.4%) 0.81% Reduced MCP

• (2) Optiphos (0.98% Total P, Av P 0.4%) 0.81% MCP + 1500FTU/kg

Optiphos

• (3) Positive Control (1.22% Total P, Av P 0.6% ) 1.9% MCP

Supplementation

16
Results

17
Effect of Hostazym X on the growth
performance of juvenile Jian Carp
(Cyprinus carpio var. Jian)

Huvepharma NV
Trial set-up

• Location: Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan

Agricultural University, China

• Duration: 10 weeks

• Fish: Jian carp (Cyprinus carpio var. Jian), 8g

• Treatments, 4 x 6 Replicates (30 fish per tank)

• (1) Control

• (2) Control + 1050 EPU Hostazym® X/kg diet

• (3) Control + 1500 EPU Hostazym® X/kg diet

Results: performance and body
composition
Final Body Weight (g)
140

118.6
120 115.2
Weight (g)

100

80.43
80

60
Control 1050 EPU Hostazym X 1500 EPU Hostazym X

20
Gut Health

Additional benefits observed in increased intestinal fold

heights and a positive shift in intestinal microbiome due to
the release of pre-biotic AXOS.

21
Effect of OptiPhos and Hostazym X
on the growth performance of
Juvenile White shrimp (Litopenaeus
vannamei)

Huvepharma NV
 Trial set-up
Formulation
• Location: Thailand Fishmeal – 15%
Soya Bean Meal - 35%
• Duration: 56 Days Wheat Flour – 30%
• Fish: Juvenile White Shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) Squid Liver Paste –
10%
• Treatments 4x 5 replicates, 80 shrimp per cage, 3g Fish oil – 1%
Premixes – 5%
Result - Growth performance

24
Result - Growth performance

25
Growth Performance Shrimp

T1 Control T2 Phytase T3 Xylanase T4 Phytase +

Xylanase

Size: 90-95 pcs/kg Size: 80-85 pcs/kg Size: 80-85 pcs/kg Size: 71-80 pcs/kg

26
Conclusions
• While enzyme use in terrestrial animal feeds has now become a global
standard, utilisation of enzymes in aquaculture feeds has lagged
behind considerably.

• All 15 trials have shown clearly that Enzymes can play an important
role in aquaculture formulations, both individually and in combination
supporting:

• Reduced formulation cost

• Improve performance
• Reduce environmental impact
• Improved gut health
• Increased use of a wider basket of ingredients by inactivation
antinutritional factors

• The key to success will be the on-going development and

implementation of cost efficient and effective dosing strategies in
extruded and pelleted feed.
27
Thank you
Indian Fish Feed Industry - Way Forward
P. Haribabu
Head Tech - Deepak Nexgen Feeds Pvt Ltd
 KOLLERU LAKE (Freshwater) – Catchment Area
Meenakumari et al., February 2021Environmental Earth Sciences 80(4):161
DOI: 10.4236/nr.2020.113008
 "One of the key reasons we're emphasizing India, is
52 million Another because within 15 years it's projected that India's Sure to be partners
population will be the largest in the world, in this projected
now 30 million surpassing even China," stated ASA's Mark Berg (Vice
ASA President) growth too.
to be Mar
added by 1997
India
2030 Office

Marine and Inland Capture Fisheries

Breed/Seed Feed Health and

market demand
Indian Major Carp scenario – surpassed this “Ova Season” and has been supplying
“stock size” and “regular or stunted yearlings” since year 2000 by Andhra Pradesh Fish
Hatchery traders in partnering with Fish Farmers.

Spawn/Fry/Fingerling
Complete and Rearing activities
smooth spawning Stunted Yearlings
Live Seed
Broodstock source Transportation

(From Commercial farmponds ) ?

Chinese Hatchery
system
 Andhra Pradesh not only Exports Market sized fish, but
Farm Raised Fish from Andhra Pradesh Marketed at Wide

produces “Fish Seed” and satisfies the major demands

Range of India - so may be the status of Fish diseases

of the country particularly for Catla, rohu and shrimp

seed also. AP state not only exports seed, but imports
from West Bengal for some rare varieties like
roopchand. Hence Transboundary Aquatic Animal
Disease (TAADs) threat is evident on national scale.
Courtesy: R.Ramakrishna
A
A
D
T

s
Ways to strengthen

Y
 Aquaculture
&
Economics

Y ?
 Perception
Multifactorial?

Sri. A. Subramanyam, MD
Dr. MVD Malleswara Rao
Director Tech

Mr. T. Srinivas CMO and his team

deserves appreciation
Nearly 25,000 hectares’ total experience from Farmers
(Customers) and 0.2 million tonnes of “Kingfish” feed
sales per annum keeps us going and growing.
As feed represents one of the highest operating costs in aquaculture systems (Hasan, 2007; Hasan et al,
2007), feed choice and feed management practices have a significant impact on the economic performance
of a production system.
The type and value of feed inputs that farmers select is dependent upon a number of factors including
* the market (local, export) and the value of the fish,
* the financial resources available to the farmer,
*the species,
*the culture system and intensity of production.
In general, inputs for low-value species that are grown for local consumption are usually limited to fertilizers,
farm-made feeds or locally produced small-scale commercial feeds comprising one or more ingredient
sources. Examples of these systems would include the Indian major carps cultured under extensive or semi-
intensive conditions in India and Bangladesh (Ramakrishna, Shipton and Hasan,2012; Sarder,2013).

In contrast, commercially manufactured pelleted feed inputs are used for high-value species that are
cultured in intensive systems. Examples would include the salmonids in Europe and the Americas (Kaushik,
2013), and, increasingly, the high-value marine fin fish(e.g. groupers, barramundi and snappers) that are
increasingly produced across southeast Asia (Hasan, 2012a).
Source: Shipton, T.A. and Hasan, M .R. 2013. An overview of the current status of feed management
practices. In M.R. Hsan and M.B. New, eds. On-farm feeding and feed management in aquaculture. FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper N o. 583. Rome, FAO. pp.3-20
So is the word Replacement/ Antinutritional Factors/
Genomics
Yes we are in the same topic ……………………..
 Approx Ratio

80:20
Labeo rohita : Catla Catla 80:20
Started with 6 species combination continued
for nearly a decade since 1980 followed by
80:20 for a decade then Pangasius sps (Basa
type) and now in Polyculture with the
addition of Pacu/Roopchand (Piaractus
brachypomus - Game chagers
 Perception
Multifactorial?

Sri. A. Subramanyam, MD
Dr. MVD Malleswara Rao
Director Tech

Mr. T. Srinivas CMO and his team

deserves appreciation
Nearly 25,000 hectares’ total experience from Farmers
(Customers) and 0.2 million tonnes of “Kingfish” feed
sales per annum keeps us going and growing.
Phytoplankton, as the autochthonous
primary producers in aquatic
ecosystems, form part of the basis of
the food web and provide mate-rials
and energy for other organisms
(Hötzel and Croome, 1999)
Dam
construction on
riverine
systems tends
to reduce
bacterial
integrity.

Unlike macroinvertebrates and fish, phyto-

plankton communities are usually present in
certain forms before andafter disturbance (Wu et
al., 2012b). These factors explain why phy-
toplankton can be used to assess the biotic
integrity of aquatic systems.
Yes we are in the same topic ……………………..
In India, fish consumption is steadily increasing, and the government
has set a target of achieving annual per capita consumption of 12
kilograms by 2024-25 against an estimated consumption of 5.6
kilograms in 2018-19.

To achieve this, much of the increase in

production is projected to come from
inland aquaculture.
Fish Feed Pellet is going to be a “KEY” factor?
Yes. Feels the Growth and Keeps the pace with quality assured
• Nutritional indicators are primarily protein,
crude fat, crude ash, calcium, phosphorus,
lysine and so on.
• Moreover, these indicators are mainly
following the “lower limit rule” rather than the
specific contents, and actually they are still
incomplete for fish feed and detailed
ingredients of fish feed. (Often most tested such as Goldfish, Liebig's law of the minimum
Salmon and Zeebrafish)
Wenwen Kong et.al.,
• Thus, fish feed quality from different Scientific Reports | (2020)
10:187
producers may be still different even if they
all meet the standards.
Currently, the rapid development and low entry barriers for China’s feed industry have led to the
emergence of aquafeeds enterprises with insuffcient conditions.

Meanwhile, production of carp and other omnivorous species is intensifying in China, and
commercial aquafeeds enterprises are also being developed to serve these industries.

In 2017, there have been 6469 feeds manufactures in China, and 3145 feeds manufactures’
output are lower than 1 million tonnes.

Due to different production levels of fish feed producers, the fish feed qualities significantly differ
both imaginably and practically. In Soong et al. (2016) study, although all grouper fish feed meal
produced by 30 manufacturers can be used to feed grouper fish, the nutritional indicators and
quality of these feed meals are not the same.
 Tilapia aquaculture: Potential for India
in meeting food, nutritional and
livelihood security 11 Nov 2022

MV Gupta
World Food Prize and Sunhawk
Peace Prize winner

Tilapia, native to Africa and the Middle East and popularly known as “aquatic chicken”, is widely farmed in about 145 countries
worldwide. Once considered “a poor man’s fish”, tilapia has emerged from mere obscurity to be one of the world’s most productive
and internationally traded food fish.
It is a versatile species, being hardy and quick growing, can be farmed in a wide array of culture environments and systems, ranging
from extensive rural subsistence, low-input pond culture using agriculture by-products to intensive systems such as recirculating
aquaculture systems (RAS), Biofloc systems, raceways and so forth.
 Tilapia – The Game changer for Indian Fish Feed sector?

While there is a steady increase in the production

of tilapia in states like West Bengal, Maharashtra,
Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand
and Kerala, the major hub for commercial
aquaculture production in India,
Andhra Pradesh, farms primarily Indian carps.
 Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
Globally, upward trends in antibiotic resistance in aquaculture
production are raising concerns that fish consumption may
contribute to human antibiotic resistance. Dependence on antibiotics
in fish farming can be mitigated using improved management practices
and adaptive strategies from farmers and actors along the value
chain. In Bangladesh and Nigeria, the Fish Innovation Lab
is conducting research that can help strengthen government regulation
regarding the proper use of antibiotics and alternatives to
antibiotics to help farmers adapt to global stresses affecting consumer
needs.
 India's food service market
may reach USD 79.65 bn by
2028, likely to generate 1 cr
jobs by 2025: Report
"India's food service market is
anticipated to project robust
growth in the forecast period
with an impressive CAGR of
11.19 per cent and reach USD
79.65 billion by 2028," it said.

Despite over 20 lakh jobs lost

during the peak of the COVID-19
pandemic, the industry is
expected to reach employment
figures of 1 crore by 2025, as per
the Food Service and Restaurant
Over FY20-25, the QSR chain market is estimated to be the highest- Business Report 2022-23, by
growing sub-segment -- at 23 per cent CAGR -- in the entire food service Francorp and restaurantindia.In.
market, not just the chain market. (Representative image from Reuters)
 Global
Village
Supply Demand
Profit Loss
Success Failure
High density Low density
High FCR Low FCR
Farmer Trader
Technology Technician
Good water Bad water
Lease Own

First Old Ponds

1985 Outdoor Indoor 2022 generation/ New
Second
small Less Control More Control Big Generation
Ponds
/Third
team Cheap tech Costly tech team Generation
 Take FCR / Growth / Health /
Water Quality / Ecosystem
home
Puzzle?
Thank You
all
Trace mineral nutrition for shrimp
Dr. Saravanan Subramanian
USSEC Aqua Tech Talk | 22 Feb 2023
The life essential elements
The life essential elements

H He

Li Be B C N O F Ne

Na Mg Al Si P S Cl Ar

K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr

Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe

Cs Ba La Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Ti Pb Bi Po At Rn

Fr Ra Ac
Trace mineral requirement for shrimp

NRC, 2011
Marsupenaeus Fenneropenaeus
mg/kg dm feed Litopenaeus vannamei Penaeus monodon
japonicus chinensis

Zinc NT 15 15 NT

Selenium NT NT 0.2-0.4 NT

Manganese R NT R NT

Copper R 25 16-32 10-30

Iron R R R R

Iodine NT NT NT NT

 Knowledge on trace mineral nutrition in shrimp is very limited

 Not a single published review of literature on trace mineral nutrition for shrimp exists
Feeding the right level of trace mineral is a challenge…

Optimum balance
Performance

homeostasis

Death Suboptimal Good Subclinical Death

supply performance toxicity
Probability

Better positive regulation Better negative regulation

Nutreco R&D, 2013

Trace element balance
(Net requirement = available supply)
Trace mineral requirement & status

The requirement of trace minerals (µg/

shrimp/day) depends on

 Life stages
 Growth
 Health status

 Stress

 Disease recovery

 Environment factors
Vital functions of trace minerals

Structural function Physiological function

 Skeletal development & strength ​  Immune development & response ​
 Collagen & cartilage production  Killing by phagocytic cells​
 Structural integrity of tissues  Respiratory function
 Collagen synthesis & crosslinking​  Hemocyanin production- Gas exchange​
 Mucus production  Antioxidant enzyme mechanism
 Integral part of metalloenzymes & hormones  Superoxide dismutase
 Glutathione peroxidase​

Regulatory function Catalytic function

 Gene expression  Enzyme activity

 Transcription factors Zn-zippers  Co-factor in enzyme activity

Importance of zinc in shrimp

 The most dietary essential trace element for shrimps

Haemocyanin Immunity
 Zinc together with copper play key role in respiratory pigment,
hemocyanin in shrimp

 Zinc is essential for innate immune function of shrimp (antioxidant Role of Antioxidant
pH regulation
defense, e.g., Zn-Cu SOD, catalase etc) Zinc defense

 Zinc is essential for exoskeleton formation of shrimp

 Zinc play important role in overall health status and stress tolerance of Growth Digestive
Performance enzymes
shrimp
Importance of copper in shrimp

Gamez et al., 2004

Importance of Mn, Fe, Se

Manganese plays important role in

 Moulting process
 Enzymes – transferases, lyases, oxidoreductase
 Antioxidant defense (Mn-SOD)
Iron play key role in
 Synthesis of steroid hormones
 Immune function – ferritin, transferrin
 Antioxidant defense (catalase)
Selenium plays important role in
 Antioxidant defense (GPX)
 Source of trace mineral for aquatic animals

 Feed is the main source to fulfil the trace mineral needs of

shrimp Functional mineral

Trace mineral
supplements
dose
 Trace elements from feed ingredients should be considered, but

source in feed
Trace mineral
it is often complex and difficult to know – but it warrants a closer Standard mineral
look premix

 Trace minerals are mainly supplied through mineral supplements

through premix Feed ingredients

 Extra level of trace minerals are provided to fulfil the specific Water
functional needs during certain periods
Uptake of trace mineral from water

Elemental content in seawater

 Shrimps can uptake minerals from water
 via gills
 through gut by drinking
 rectal absorption

 Only limited amount of mineral contribution from water – but

it is influenced by several factors.
 Water salinity (freshwater vs. seawater)
 Type of minerals
 Water chemistry (pH, alkalinity etc)
 Osmoregulation strategy
Level of zinc in feed ingredients

160

140
Zn, mg/kg dry matter

120
Fish meal
100

80

60

40

20

Trace mineral content of common feed ingredients differs depending on type & origin

IAFFD, INRAE Feed Tables

Trace minerals content of the soybean meals

Trace minerals content of the soybean meals, mg/kg (mean, n=14)

48
47 Zn*
Argentina
112
Mn
15
Fe
54 Cu*
37
Brazil
181
14

54
39
USA
125
15

55
47
India
843
17
Ibáñez, et al. 2020
 Total zinc content in salmon feed

Industry average level of Zn in commercial salmon feed in

Norway
340
320
300
 Improve innate immune response and disease
Zinc mg/kg complete feed

280
260 resistance
240
 Better skin health & mucus quality
220
200 EU max limit  Strengthen antioxidant defense
180
160
140
120 Zn requirement for growth – 40 mg/kg
100
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
 Trace mineral supplementation in feed

How much to supplement ace minerals in feed should take into Conceptual illustration
consideration
high

Dietary trace mineral needs,

 Actual need of shrimp

 Bioavailability - mineral source

mg/kg DM
 Loss due to dietary interaction

 FCR

 Environment

 Legislation
low
0 1 2 3

FCR
Mineral source matters!

Mineral form​s Example

Oxides ZnO
Oxidised metals​

Inorganic salts ZnSO4

Sulphates, carbonates, chlorides​

Hydroxy minerals Zn5(OH)8Cl2·H2O

IntelliBond®​

Organic chelates
AA, proteins, carbohydrates Zn-Proteinates​
Optimin®​​

Bioavailability depends on mineral form and their chemical properties

Solubility/Dissociation spectrum at pH 7

Sulfate Organic IntelliBond

Hydroxy trace minerals
• Salt with ionic bond • Molecule with
• Molecule with
• Highly soluble covalent bonds
covalent bonds
• Soluble = • Can be soluble, but
• Low solubility, thus
dissociated not necessarily
low dissociation at
dissociated
a pH of 7
• Sources differ in
bond strength
 Bonds strength and mineral source solubility

Table sugar (sucrose) – C12H22O11 Table salt (sodium chloride) – NaCl

COVALENT IONIC
Covalent bonds keep atoms together Ionic bonds allow atoms to dissociate
when the substance dissolves when the substance dissolves

Zn-Proteinates ZnSO4
Quantitative bond strength (Qf)

Zinc sulphate Zinc amino acid complex

Qf: 0 Qf: 0 - 300

Zinc proteinates Zinc intestinal transporter

Qf: 1000 - 3700 Qf: 10, 000,000

 Zinc requirement in shrimp

Species Diet Zn level tested, Zn requirement, mg/kg Zn source Response variable

added, ppm diet
Tiger shrimp Purified 0 to 120 35 to 48 ZnSO4 only Weight gain, haemolymph
Penaeus monodon Zn, & immune response

Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus Purified 0 to 60 15 (no phytate) ZnMet>ZnLys>ZnGly>ZnSO4 Weight gain, tissue Zn,
vannamei 200 (with phytate) immune response

Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus Practical 45 to 130 105 Zn-Amino acids chelate only Weight gain
vannamei

Zn requirement of White leg shrimp

Shi et al., 2021

Points to remember & link

• Shrimps are slow nibbling feeders, this demand feed and nutrients to be highly water
stable (minimal leaching/loss into water)

• Shrimp lacks true stomach, pH of gut is close to neutral

• Molting is crucial for shrimp growth. In order to grow, shrimp must shed it exoskeleton
regularly and regrow new exoskeleton

• Shrimp does not have adaptive immune system (no antibody) and relies only on innate
immune defense system
Thank you

saravanan.subramanian@selko.com
+47 94131071
 IMPROVING
HUMAN AND
P L A N E TA R Y
H E A LT H

FUNCTIONAL INGREDIENTS
FOR FISH NUTRITION

Kiranpreet Kaur
Director R&D, Fish Health &
Nutrition
 FEEDING A GROWING
POPULATION WILL
10 BILLION
REQUIRE 70% MORE
PEOPLE
FOOD PRODUCTION
TOWARDS 2050
 POPULATION GROWTH DEMANDS SWIFT ACTION

A global population of 10 billion in 2050 is expected to cause The need for sustainable ecosystems, climate change, and water
a 56% food gap compared to calories produced in 2010 scarcity are key challenges for future food production
 TODAY BUT 70% OF
MOST HUMAN THE EARTH IS
FOOD COMES COVERED WITH
FROM LAND OCEAN
AREAS
OCEANS TO BECOME KEY TO RESOLVING GLOBAL PROTEIN NEEDS

SCALING UP
WE NEED MORE AQUACULTURE
FOOD FROM THE IS ESSENTIAL
OCEAN TO FUTURE FOOD
SECURITY
AQUACULTURE IS A VEHICLE TO PROVIDE NUTRITIONAL SECURITY

>50 % of the total global fish production is contributed by aquaculture

Aquaculture is needed:
- To improve food and nutrition security
- To alleviate poverty in rural areas
- To sustain the increasing demand for fish and seafood
 AQUACULTURE IS MORE ECO- FRIENDLY THAN
LAND-BASED LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

Farmed fish needs the lowest land area to produce 100 g Farmed fish is more resource efficient
of edible protein
AQUACULTURE IS MORE CARBON EFFICIENT
THAN LAND-BASED LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

A carbon footprint measures the total greenhouse gas emissions

caused directly and indirectly by the production of a product

Global Salmon Initiative (2020)

SHIFT TO PLANT-BASED AQUACULTURE DIETS

• Increased water footprint

• Antinutritional factors
• Low palatability
• Amino acid, fatty acid & mineral profile
Fish meal + • Mycotoxins
Fish oil • Could be used directly for human food
Feed compositions of different aquaculture fish species

Pahlow et al 2015
MICRONUTRIENTS ARE VITAL FOR FISH HEALTH AND PERFORMANCE

• Vitamins, minerals play an important role in

enhancing performance and robustness of fish

• More additives in feeds with low fish meal

inclusion levels

• Organic minerals and vitamins have better

bioavailability and assimilation than inorganic

• Gut health could be compromised with

inorganic supplementation
 NEW KNOWLEDGE -
CHOLINE IS AN ESSENTIAL MICRONUTRIENT

CHOLINE REDUCES FAT DEPOSITION IN INTESTINE AND LIVER

• Sufficient amounts of choline is required to form the

lipoproteins that transport lipids out of the intestine

• Choline defieciency leads to reduced growth and steatosis

Phosphatidyl Lipo- Lipid

Choline Photostransport
choline proteins : Åshild Krogdahl
 NATURAL SOURCE OF CHOLINE FROM KRILL IS MORE EFFICIENT THAN INORGANIC CHOLINE CHLORIDE

 Krill meal (KM) is a natural source of choline

 Reduced levels of choline supplementation

needed with KM than choline chloride in feeds

 Higher growth with lower choline

supplementation levels from krill, when
compared to choline chloride with higher
choline levels

 Krill (with lower choline supplementation

levels) reduced the fat accumulation in
intestine and liver to the same extent as higher
levels of choline from choline chloride
PROMISING SOURCES OF FUTURE FEED RAW MATERIAL

MAJOR BARRIERS
• High energy costs
• Market acceptance
• Currently small scale production
• Competition with other food sectors (pet/poultry)
• Lack of testing at large scale- effect on fish health and quality
Testing new raw materials takes too long. The ingredient suppliers are
unable to scale up production quickly enough

TIMELINE OF R&D NEEDED AND PRODUCTION CAPACITY > 200 000 MT

Production
capacity

> 20 000 MT

> 100 MT

Cost per MT

1 kg 10 kg 100 kg

Years
2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years
needed

BASIC CONCEPT SMALL SCALE LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL

Trials

PILOT
RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT TESTING TESTING OFFERING
Novel feed ingredient suppliers must take an active role in developing
our own raw material before we become a strategic raw material for only
certain feed suppliers
NEW R&D MODEL TO ACCELERATE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW FEED INGREDIENTS
 ACCELLERATE SUPPLY
OF NOVEL,
SUSTAINABLE
GLOBAL DEMAND OF SPEED UP THE ACCELERATE
FEED INGREDIENTS MORE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF GO TO MARKET
FOOD NOVEL INGREDIENTS WITH R&D LISCENCES
 Aker BioMarine has a vision to
increase the amount of With large-scale field trials granted
sustainable low trophic from the Norwegian Directorate of
Demand for healthy nutrition for Novel low trophic ingredients could
ingredients used across the humans and animals is increasing, at play an important role in addressing
Fisheries we aim to demonstrate the
aquaculture industry the same time as we need to reduce global challenges, but must first
feasibility of novel ingredients in feed
documenting greater fish health, and
climate emissions from the food sector survive the long journey to market
economical and environmental
benefits
 Together with other ingredient Secure FTO
suppliers, we aim to offer the and market
access in Sell across
feed producers to enrich 25 % multiple multiple
jurisdictions
of their conventional feed with Due to population increase, higher
incomes and longer average lifespans
Secure raw and markets
segments and
geographies
Study program to accelerate testing of
new novel feed ingredients on both
material
affordable and more we will need to produce 70% more food 2-5 years
1-10 years 3-5 years small and large-scale to explore the
environmentally sustainable by 2050 potential in commercial feed

ingredients that supports fish Seafood production should triple. With Large-scale field trials, in reaslitc
health and nutrition alternative feed sources, the marine
sector has the potential for a six-fold
farming condtions, to document
seasonal and evironmental effects of
increase in production using novel feedingredients

Study design and results will be fully

Traditional fisheries are already utilized
 Aker BioMarine therefore above capacity, and only 20% of arable
transparent to demonstrate the
ingredients’ effect to the whole
applied for large-scale field land is left to grow agriculture
industry
trials from the Norwegian Invest in Demonstrate
Aim to address the gaps and the
Ministry of Fishery November We need to reduce CO2 emissions production and capture
knowledge needed to upscale
dramatically in order to mitigate climate value through
2022 change
facilities,
scale-up and science, IP and
production and inclusion of ingredients
in commercial setup
refine product marketing
2-4 years 3-5 years
With the research program we will demonstrate the feasibility of novel
ingredients in feed documenting greater fish health, economical and
environmental benefits

OBJECTIVE

Accelerate testing of novel feed ingredients on both small and large-scale to explore the potential in commercial
feed

Business point of view

1. TO USE OUR EXPERIENCE AS AN INGREDIENT 2. TO VALIDATE NEW INGREDIENTS

SUPPLIER TO SOURCE NEW RAW MATERIALS 3. TO VET NEW POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS
AT LARGE SCALE

From a scientific point of view

1. TO SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE 2. TO FIND NEW RESPONSIBLE 3. TO SUPPORT CONSISTENCE 4. TO DEVELOP HIGH

AQUACULTURE INGREDIENTS SUPPLY OF NEW INGREDIENTS NUTRITIONAL FEED
With an R&D license from the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, it is
possible to carry out expensive large-scale research in cages

ABOUT R&D LICENSES FROM NORWEGIAN DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES

• The Directorate of Fisheries issues research Application round: Ongoing

permits for aquaculture with the aim of
Application duration: 12 months
developing knowledge that benefits the entire
Price per license: 24 000 NOK per license
aquaculture industry
for comparison, similar license at auction
cost ~140 m NOK for 780 MTB
• The research trials will contribute to increased Size on license: Max 780 MTB per license
understanding of fish biology, health and welfare
Duration of license: About 10 years. Possible to apply for
with novel ingredients
extension

• The license makes it possible to carry out large-

scale research in real farming conditions

• Ingredients : insect meal, microalgae, single cell

proteins, tunicates, seaweed.
CURRENT SCENARIO

ONLY 3 OF THE NEW PROMISING RAW MATERIALS HAVE BEEN TESTED IN FISH FEED ON A LARGE SCALE

• Fungi • Bacteria • Heterotrophic • By-products from

• Tunicates Mussels microalgae seafood
Significant
• Insects production
SUSTAINABILITY POTENTIAL

• Macroalgae

• Grass • Phototrophic
Moderate • Mesopelagic fish microalgae • Antarctic krill
• Ruadåte

• By-products from
Insignificant agriculture

Small

Basic Research Concept Pilot Plant Demonstration Small Scale Large Scale
Development

TEKNOLOGICAL MATURITY
ANTARCTIC KRILL

FUNCTIONAL AND SUSTAINABLE

 Low in the food chain

 Feeds of zooplankton
 Combination of excellent nutrients and attractants
for fish
 Certified sustainability
LARGEST BIOMASS AND SUSTAINABLE FISHING

Harvesting only allowed in Area 48

Estimated biomass
63 million MT
Biomass Quota Area 48 <1% of
One of the largest biomass
single-species biomasses

Krill Harvest
Total annual catch <300,000 MT
(<0.5% of the biomass)

Healthy biomass in area 48

2000: 60 MILL MT
2019: 63 MILL MT
KRILL MEAL: A COMBINATION OF IMPORTANT NUTRIENTS

OMEGA-3
PROTEINS FATTY ACIDS

FEED
MICRO-
ATTRACTANT
NUTRIENTS

PHOSPHOLIPIDS ASTAXANTHIN
 NUTRITIONAL PROFILE OF KRILL MEAL
26% FAT 57% PROTEIN 10% ASH 7% WATER, OTHERS

FATTY ACIDS LIPID COMPOSITION AMINO ACIDS MINERALS TMAO CHITIN

(g/100g extracted fat) (%) (%) (mg/kg) 142 mg N/100g meal 3.9%
60 Aspartic acid
Glutamic
Phospholipids acid Cu Zn
Cholesterol 1.4
10
Others Alanine 12.7 58 48
30 11.2 42.6
5
Histidine
2
45.1 VITAMINS
Arginine 5.8
44.8 (µg/100g)
7.7 Fe Se
0 Leucine 7.2 A D3 E
Triacylglycerol 35 4
N-3 N-6 Others
Lysine 1249.9 0.23 9356.2

ASTAXANTHIN PEPTIDE SIZE * NUCLEOTIDES/NUCLEOSIDES

Ca Mg
120 mg/kg (Da) (mg/kg)
19600 4820 ATP
<10
Inosine
More than 50% of 798
the peptides are
smaller than 200 Da. I P
AMP
1374.25
CHOLINE 5 15000 IMP
1751.75 ADP
1.3% 419.25

NaCl
165.25
Nucleotides K-value
2,8% 29.43 Hypoxanthine
* Water-soluble
 HARVESTING LOW IN THE FOOD CHAIN IN A
RESPONSIBLE WAY

FARMED FISH

WILD CAUGHT FISH

ZOOPLANKTON/KRILL

PHYTOPLANKTON/MICROALGAE

ENERGY (MJ) DIOXINS+PCB

90% energy loss at Accumulation of toxins
each level up the up the levels in the
WATER
food chain food chain

Krill is low in the food chain, and feeding krill directly to farmed fish is a tool to produce energy efficient and
fish with less toxins
KRILL MEAL IS RICH IN FEED ATTRACTANTS
THAT INCREASE PALATABILITY, FEED INTAKE
AND GROWTH PERFORMANCE
Reduce waste and leakage of nutrients
by shortening the time between feed
distribution and feeding

Comparison of feed raw materials

(Suresh et al. 2011)
1. Poultry by-product meal, pet grade
2. Poultry by-product meal, feed grade
3. Hydrolyzed feather meal
4. Blood meal
5. Anchovy fish meal
6. Fish hydrolysate
7. Krill meal
8. Squid liver meal

Suresh et al., Aquaculture, 2011

 KRILL IMPROVES GROWTH PERFORMANCE IN CARP
60 days GROWTH EXPERIMENT ENHANCED GROWTH
22.4 °C
Initial body weight 113.5 g

CONTROL DIET:
Commercial diet
(43% protein, 12% fat, 4% fiber & 6% ash)

Krill oil (KO) inclusion:

Control diet + 5g/Kg KO

Density of rearing
LD: low density (15 fish/ rearing unit)
HD: high density (35 fish/ rearing unit)
(Cyprinus carpio)

BIOMASS WEIGHT GAIN (g) FCR PROTEIN DIGESTIBILITY(g)

1.32 11 %

5% 1.21 2.44
3970 1.06 2.19 9.6 %
3788 0.95 1.93
5900 72.8
60
1.76
6%
3000
2076 2207

CONTROL-LD CONTROL-LD+KO CONTROL-HD CONTROL -HD+KO CONTROL-LD CONTROL-LD+KO CONTROL-HD CONTROL -HD+KO CONTROL-LD CONTROL-LD+KO CONTROL-HD CONTROL -HD+KO

KO inclusion led to higher biomass at both low

and high density in comparison to control group Better utilization of nutrients with KO inclusion Better absorption of protein with KO inclusion

Source: Nastac et al.

SUSTAINABLE AND
FUNCTIONAL
INGREDIENTS LEAD
TO SUSTAINABLE
AQUACULTURE

SUSTAINABLE
AQUACULTURE WILL
DELIVER HEALTHY AND
SUSTAINABLE FOOD
 THANK YOU

Please reach me at:

kiranpreet.kaur@akerbiomarine.com

F A S T E R G R O W T H . B E T T E R Q U A L I T Y. T H E S U P E R I O R F E E D I N G R E D I E N T.
 Preconditioniong: a vital
component of aqua feed processing

Ramesh Gangatharan. Ph.D.

Wenger Manufacturing
Mob: +91-9444 384 369
Email:ramesh@wenger.com
 Wenger Manufacturing Inc.
World Supplier of Extrusion, Drying and Controls
Systems
since 1935
Focused extrusion of cereal-based products.
• Pet Foods
• Aquatic Feeds
• Animal Feeds
• Human Food Applications
 The initial days of Aquaculture was
simple
• Involved hand-feeding of
“trash fish” or home-blended diets:
1) These feeds simulated natural diets and were
palatable, but …
2) Availability was not consistent
3) Storage of feed was a problem (frozen or fresh)
4) Disease and virus transmission was likely
5) Labor intensive
6) Water pollution was huge issue
The next phase in feed processing was
Pelleted Aqua Feeds
• Advantages of pelleted feeds
over hand fed natural diets:
1) Increased density
2) Better storage
3) Reduced ingredient segregation
4) Less feed waste
5) Some improvement in water
pollution
 Hardware

Dry Recipe Delivery

Preconditioning

Extruding
Pre-conditioning
Hydrate raw material particles
Heat raw material particles
Mix raw materials added in separate
streams
 Benefits of Pre-conditioning
• Reduced mechanical energy input
• Increased thermal energy input
• Increase starch gelatinization
• Increased capacity
• Reduced screw / parts wear
Hydration & Heating
• Moisture Addition
- Steam
- Water

• Slurry Addition
- Water-based
- Oil-based
 Fresh
Water Meat Fat

Steam
SINGLE PRECONDITIONER, short retention time,
inadequate mixing

DOUBLE PRECONDITIONER, better

but industry required improvements.

DIFFERENTIAL DIAMETER/SPEED
PRECONDITIONER, An original
Design from more than 20 years ago
Effect of mixing on Hydration &
Heating
Latest Precon design is the High
Intensity Preconditoner
Comparison of particle size off precon with
75% fresh meat slurry addition

New High Intensity Preconditioner Original DDC Preconditioner

 HIP

1) Mixing intensity controlled by speed

and rotational direction of each shaft
2) Increased radial and distributive
mixing
3) Up to 2 times more beater contacts
than original DDC
4) Instant display of retention time
5) Retention time can be varied
 HIP Performance
DDC
• Process Performance:
• 1) Cook levels*
• 2) ↑ Mixing = ↓ particle size
• 3) Use MI to control product density
• 4) Smaller particles off preconditioner HIP
improve food safety efforts because of more
uniform hydration and temperature

*DDC average cook 30-35% with occasional 40% cook:

HIP average cook levels 35-40% with occasional 70% cook
 HIP – Process benefits

1) Improved product hygiene

2) Higher levels of liquids and
slurries (↑ mixing)
3) Reduced product waste at
startup/shutdown
4) “Flush” and CIP modes
Precise addition of moisture to Pre-con
Comparing Precon design with CV & Cook
Levels
Preconditioner Design CV (%) Cook (%)
HIP (80% MI) 2.65 30.0
DDC 4.96 25.9
DC (Double Cylinder) 6.66 20.4
SC (Single Cylinder) 9.36 15.7
Comparison of Preconditioner designs
Conditioner Pros Cons

SC • Low cost • Difficult to obtain good mixing

• Low maintenance • Short retention time
• Limited steam absorbtion
DC • Medium cost • Medium cost
• Moderate retention time • Moderate retention time
• Better mixing

DDC • Good mixing • Higher cost

• Longer retention time
• More flexible
HIP • Excellent mixing • Highest cost
• Longer (controlled) retention time
• Highest flexibility
• Highest capacity at comparable volume
Comparison of Preconditioner designs
Conditioner Specifications
SC • 30 seconds retention time1
• Up to 4% fat2
• Very limited levels of fresh meat2
DC • 1-1.5 minutes retention time1
• Up to 8% fat2
• Up to 15% fresh meat2
DDC • 1.5 – 3 minutes retention time1
• Up to 20% fat2
• Up to 40% fresh meat2
HIP • 1.0 – 2.5 minutes (variable) retention time
• Up to 40% fat2
• Up to 90% fresh meat2
1. Retention times assume comparable total free volumes
2. Fat / fresh meat is calculated as a proportion of the dry recipe.
HSC : High Shear Preconditioner
HSC : High Shear Preconditioner
Single shaft tapered design
Designed special for aquatic feed production
Single drive motor resulting in lower energy cost per
ton
Increased beater contacts per minute - 48,000 per
minute
Increased shear as feed goes from high volume inlet to
low volume outlet
Improved steam absorption due to steam entry
location and tapered design
 HSC : Performance results
1. Increases distributive mixing resulting in very low coefficient
of variation – Less than 2.5%
2. Increased starch gelatinization levels (cook) of 35 - 45%,
formula dependent
a) Very important for high fibrous aquatic formulations
b) Improves extrusion process and product uniformity
3. Capable of high discharge temperatures of greater than 90
degrees C
4. Lower steam inclusion required due to improved absorption
– less steam escaping preconditioner
 Wenger Technical Center
Research & Product Development - Test Your Products & Procedures
Questions ?

Thank You!
Email:ramesh@wenger.com
NUTRIENT VALUE CALCULATOR FOR AQUA
FEEDS

Matthew Clark, Director,

FeedGuys Resources Pte Ltd

22nd Feb 2023

Nutrient Value Calculator
 Extension of a least cost formulation system – it’s a method that can be
applied to most systems

 The calculation for the individual feeds uses the same data as the basic
least cost program
 Uses tonnage to derive an Enterprise evaluation
 Calculates and ROI on a trade or purchase

 Todays topics:
 Evaluation of different types of Soy Products – SBOM, FFS, DHFFS etc
 Evaluation of Full Fat Soya at different moisture levels
 Evaluates Soybean Meal sources at enterprise level in terms of profitability
 Solution Structure – SBM, SBOM and FFS Products
Whole Partial Extraction Ingredient
Soybeans Edible Oil Prices
• Corn
Extraction
Fat (High) • SBM
Hulls SBM in • Amino Acids
Hulls % Nutrition • Minerals
Soybean Meal SID Amino • Feed Fats
Protein Protein Acids
Fat (low) Optimal Solution
Amino Acids Total Amino Acid LP
Starch & Sugar and Analysis
Starch & Fat (low) Solver
Sugar Starch & Sugar Energy from
Residual Oil • SID AA
Extrusion Formula Specs
Moisture Loss • Fat
• Starch & • Ingredient
Sugar Choice and
Ideal selection at the bean or limits
SBM stage should be for the • Nutrient
extraction economics and final Choice and
nutritional characteristics Limits
SBM product options ‘In-House’ (Poultry)
Base SBM NDH SBM Soy Oil Meal Soy Oil Meal FFS 92% DM
NAME
(ARG) 46.5 6.0 45.5 8.0 Extruded
Dry Matter 89.00 89.00 93.30 93.42 92.00
Crude Protein 45.50 43.68 46.51 45.51 37.53
AMEn Broiler 2108.98 1984.04 2481.60 2621.72 3575.45
Crude Fat 1.66 1.21 6.01 8.02 19.24
Dig LYS 2.42 2.31 2.58 2.53 1.98
Dig MET 0.54 0.45 0.57 0.55 0.47
DIG M&C 0.96 0.80 1.10 1.07 0.84

 Seeking a differentiation between meals

 Amino acids and energy are the key nutrients
NVC evaluating FFS and Moisture loss
 FFS is a high amino acid, high energy product
 Extrusion is a popular process
 Soybeans can be quality controlled
 Beans can be cleaned to protect the plant and enhance quality

 Extrusion process has optional steps

 Beans can be dehulled to raise the protein and energy
 Fat can be partially extracted
 Depending on the bean, a medium oil product can have 48-50% protein
 Useful substitute to MBM, PBP etc
Objection is the loss of moisture and shrinkage in the process
 FFS with decreasing moisture
f FFS 88 FFS 89 FFS 90 FFS 91 FFS 92 FFS 93 FFS 94
Weight 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crude Protein 34.80 35.19 35.59 35.98 36.38 36.77 37.17
Crude Fat 17.90 18.10 18.30 18.51 18.71 18.91 19.12
Crude Fibre 5.20 5.25 5.31 5.37 5.43 5.49 5.55
Dry Matter 88.00 89.00 90.00 91.00 92.00 93.00 94.00
DE Fish Omnivore 4302.83 4351.73 4400.63 4449.52 4498.42 4547.31 4596.21
ME Fish Carnivore 3657.41 3698.97 3740.53 3782.09 3823.65 3865.22 3906.78
Digestible Lys Fish 1.83 1.85 1.87 1.89 1.91 1.94 1.96
Digestible Met Fish 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.48
Digestible M&C Fish 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.96
Digestible Thr Fish 1.10 1.11 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.18
Shadow Prices Indicate Rising Value

 Shadow prices
show high value of
FFS as moisture is
lost

 Rising shadow
prices caused by
higher nutrient
density

 These feeds have

limited volume and
premium on density
Shadow Prices Indicate Rising Value

 In hight density feeds, ‘Space’

is at a premium.

 The restriction cost on lower

density FFS is -512 indicating
the formula nutrients are
being squeezed into a small
space

 A 1% decrease in density will

save $5.12 per tonne of feed
Shadow Prices Indicate Rising Value
 Low moisture FFS Offered to
the formula

 When higher density

ingredients are offered the
cost penalty of space is
reduced

 Space cost has dropped from

$512 to $113 per unit

 Least cost formulation puts a

premium value on nutrient
dense ingredients
 Formulas with FFS with decreasing moisture
f FFS 88 FFS 89 FFS 90 FFS 91 FFS 92 FFS 93 FFS 94 FFS 94
772.00 780.77 789.54 798.31 807.09 815.86 824.63 833.40
Wheat 12.5% 391.30 41.90 42.13 42.36 42.59 42.82 43.05 43.28 43.51
Wheat Flour 627.17 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Base SBM 691.30 10.16 10.04 9.92 9.81 9.69 9.57 9.45 9.33
Full Fat Soya 772.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Corn Gluten 1043.48 2.63 2.60 2.58 2.55 2.52 2.50 2.47 2.45
Rice Bran 239.13 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Oil, Fish 3500.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Oil, Soybean 2500.00 1.52 1.44 1.35 1.26 1.18 1.09 1.00 0.92
L-Lysine HCl 1434.78 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
DL-Methionine 2391.30 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
L-Threonine 1804.35 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Comparative Formulation – Cost impact
FFS 88 FFS 89 FFS 90 FFS 91 FFS 92 FFS 93
FM Cost 663.62 662.15 660.68 659.20 657.73 656.26
Profit - 1.47 2.95 4.42 5.89 7.36
FFS Price 772.00 780.77 789.55 798.32 807.09 815.86
FFS Amt 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
FFS Value 772.00 795.50 818.99 842.49 865.99 889.47

In the Money 14.73 29.45 44.17 58.90 73.61

 Moisture loss leads to higher nutrient and economic value

 Only works if the nutrient matrix is adjusted for the decreasing moisture
Recap on Single Formula
 Nutrient Density Matters

 Ingredients choices offered

 Argentina
 Brazil
 US
 India

 Comparative Formulation
 Cost Impact
 Impact of Crude Protein Restriction
 Exploring Different SBM sources financially
NAME Arg SBM 2020 Bra SBM 2020 USA SBM 2020 IND SBM 2020
WEIGHT 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PROTEIN 45.50 47.00 46.40 46.30
DEOMNI 2,979.63 3,085.55 3,118.08 2,897.47
MEOMNI 2,502.89 2,591.86 2,619.19 2,433.88
CFAT 1.66 1.78 1.67 1.11
FIBRE 4.32 5.03 3.88 6.55
ASH 6.54 6.29 6.54 7.48
SUCROSE 6.41 5.24 6.99 5.50
STARCH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

 Seeking a differentiation between meals

 Amino acids and energy are the key nutrients
Comparative Formulation – Tilapia Grower
 Formulas
have slight
differences

 Lowest SBM
usage is with
US SBM

 Lowest Oil
usage is with
US SBM
Comparative Formulation – Cost impact (Tilapia)
SBMARG-S SBMBRA-S SBMUSA-S SBMIND-S
FM Cost 654.07 648.61 647.16 657.07
Profit 0.00 5.46 6.91 -2.99
SBM Price 691.00 691.00 691.00 691.00
SBM Amt 10.83 10.62 10.29 10.54
SBM Value 691.00 742.47 758.20 662.59

In The Money 0.00 51.47 67.20 -28.40

 Most efficient formula is with US SBM

 Premium of US SBM over Arg SBM is US$ 67.201 per tonne
Crude Protein has a cost
 Financial Impact – Crude Protein in Carp Feed
CP Limit SBMARG-S SBMBRA-S SBMUSA-S SBMIND-S
 Crude Protein
FM Cost 728.958 721.212 720.141 732.224
has a cost
Profit 0.000 7.746 8.817 -3.266
 Is it necessary?
SBM Price 691.000 691.000 691.000 691.000
SBM Amt 20.664 23.522 26.121 15.943  Value
SBM Value 691.000 723.931 724.757 670.514 differentiation
In The Money 0.000 32.931 33.756 -20.486 changes when
No CP Limit SBMARG-S SBMBRA-S SBMUSA-S SBMIND-S
the Crude
FM Cost 716.778 708.575 707.428 720.071
Protein limit is
Profit 0.000 8.203 9.349 -3.294
removed
SBM Price 691.000 691.000 691.000 691.000
SBM Amt 17.319 19.626 21.075 15.948
SBM Value 691.000 732.797 735.361 670.348
In The Money 0.000 41.797 44.361 -20.652
Nutrient Value Calculator
 Four different feeds with different cost reactions
 Tonnage is included in the calculation
 Alternative SBM’s offered
 Arg SBM, Bra SBM, US SBM, Ind SBM

 Check the overall scenario;

 Ingredients used
 Costs of feeds in different scenarios

 Financial reporting of savings or net expenses

 Estimate of the premiums for higher density material
 Calculate the ROI and relative value
Feeds to study

Seq Feed Type Tonnes  This is a simple

example
1 Tilapia Grower 3,000
2 Carp Grower 3,000
 A commercial feed
3 Pangasius Grower 3,000
mill would include all
4 Shrimp Grower 1,000 the products in
Total 10,000 current production
or the top 90%
Formula Cost Table

Feed Type Arg SBM Bra SBM US SBM Ind SBM

1 Tilapia Grower 663.707 658.241 656.794 666.701
2 Carp Grower 728.958 721.212 720.141 732.224
3 Pangasius Grower 731.988 730.444 730.191 732.794
4 Shrimp Grower 704.698 690.226 688.677 711.129

 Cost of the feeds are a key determinant to ingredient selection

Ingredient Usage – Proteins and Amino Acids
Ingredient Arg SBM Bra SBM US SBM Ind SBM
Cost 691.00 691.00 691.00 691.00
Base SBM 691.30 1,316.98 1,397.24 1,482.32 1,145.20
Full Fat Soya 826.09 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
Fishmeal 60% 1,434.78 360.00 360.00 360.00 363.90
Poultry Meal 1,130.44 670.00 670.00 666.23 670.00
MBM 50% 586.96 670.00 670.00 670.00 670.00
Corn Gluten 1,043.48 472.39 385.88 356.02 476.60
L-Lysine HCl 1,434.78 184.10 174.25 168.89 232.68
DL-Methionine 2,391.30 23.07 25.10 26.04 22.75
L-Threonine 1,804.35 17.04 17.07 16.65 19.56
L-Valine 3,652.17 0.27 - - 2.97

 Some substitutions on the proteins occurring. CGM is reducing with US SBM

Ingredient Usage – Grains and Cereal Products
Ingredient Arg SBM Bra SBM US SBM Ind SBM

Cost 691.00 691.00 691.00 691.00

Wheat 12.5% 391.30 3,493.50 3,525.02 3,501.36 3,534.84

Wheat Flour 627.17 950.00 950.00 950.00 950.00

Wheat Pollard 239.13 24.48 16.53 - 82.14

Rice Bran 239.13 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00

Oil, Fish 3,500.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Oil, Soybean 2,500.00 48.22 38.25 33.54 56.03

 Difference in the added oil due to the energy balance from the other raw
materials
Comparative Formulation – Cost impact
SBMARG-S SBMBRA-S SBMUSA-S SBMIND-S
FM Cost 7,078,999.02 7,020,362.10 7,010,596.14 7,106,524.43
Profit - 58,636.93 68,402.88 - 27,525.41
SBM Price 691.00 691.00 691.00 691.00
SBM Amt 1,316.98 1,397.24 1,482.32 1,145.20
In the Money - 41.97 46.15 - 24.04

SBM Value 691.00 732.97 737.15 666.96

 Most efficient formula is with US SBM

 Premium of US SBM over Arg SBM is US$ 67.201 per tonne
 Dollars on the table – US$ 68,402.88 per month on 10K tonnes production
NVC - Conclusions
 Check the overall tonnage weighted scenario;
 Ingredients used
 Costs of feeds in different scenarios
 Financial reporting of savings or net expenses

 NVC calculates the premium for the test products

 Based on lowering diet cost
 Savings expressed per tonne of test SBM
 Shows the economic value of each test SBM

 May benefit from a resetting of KPI’s to FEED cost saving by purchasing

operations
 Aqua Tech Talks: Fish Nutrition Workshop

INNOVATIONS IN
FISH FEED FORMULATION
Dr. Biju Sam Kamalam
ICAR-Directorate of Coldwater Fisheries Research, Bhimtal, Uttarakhand

Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

Aquaculture in the Food System

Aquaculture is feeding the world’s growing appetite for fish and seafood

FAO, 2020 USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

Aquaculture and Feed Scenario

Fed aquaculture production has outpaced the non-fed subsector in world aquaculture

FAO, 2020 USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

 Fish Feeds in the ‘One Health Aquaculture’ Framework
Nutritional requirements
Quality of ingredients / feeds
Feeding strategies Waste management / pollution
Nutrient availability / retention Optimization of resource use
Health / stress management Fish Sustainable ecosystems
Climate smart / resilient
One Health
Aquaculture
Nutritional security
Food safety Environment
Human
Equitable livelihood

Intensification and expansion leads to deeper Aquaculture-Environment-Human nexus

Stentiford et al., 2020 USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

Salmonid Feed Evolution

Increasing content of
digestible proteins and lipids
for reducing N loss

Paradigm shift in the use of marine and plant resources

Hardy and Gatlin, 2002; Hansen, 2019 USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023
Fish Meal and Fish Oil Replacement

Soybean meal
Fish meal Wheat flour

Vitamins and
Fish oil Minerals
Vegetable oil

Turchini et al., 2018 USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

Fish Meal and Fish Oil Replacement

Soybean meal
Protein
A Fish meal Wheat flour

Protein
B Vitamins and
Fish oil Minerals
Vegetable oil

Turchini et al., 2018 USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

From Alternatives to Complementarity
Protein Protein Protein
A B C
Soybean meal
Protein Amino
Additive Acid
D
Wheat flour
Fish meal

Vitamins and
Fish oil Minerals
Vegetable oil

Turchini et al., 2018 USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

 From Alternatives to Complementarity / Interactions
Using a complementary blend of plant / animal proteins to substitute fish meal
250

Feed intake (1.4 -1.5 g/kg/day)

F in a l m e a n w t . ( g )
200
Initial wt. 42 g
Feed efficiency (1.1-1.2) 150
15 week feeding trial
Growth estimates
Temperature 17 ± 2oC 100

FM: 65, 50, 35 and 20% 50

0
CON T1 T2 T3

400

N g a in ( m g /k g /d a y )
300

Carcass composition Tissue indices 200

Nutrient gain / loss Plasma metabolites
Sensory evaluation Metabolic biomarkers 100

0
CON T1 T2 T3

No adverse impact on production and welfare traits

Nahida / Kamalam et al. (Unpublished) USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

 Looking for ‘Solutions at the Source’
Camelina sativa / Yarrowia lipolytica Glycine max Cereals

Transgenic Camelina expressing Selective breeding and gene editing Embedding additives inside
algal genes produces n-3 LC-PUFA tools for reducing ANFs and improve the grain (Novus – INTERIUS)
rich oil (validated in salmon) nutritional quality (like QPM) No fermentation / coating
Betancor et al., 2015 Punjabi et al., 2018 Stacking enzymes / antibodies

USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

Production System Oriented – RAS Feeds

Formulations that manipulates biophysical properties of faecal wastes

Some commercial examples are RCX, Orbit and PowerRAS

Rajesh / Kamalam et al. (Unpublished) USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

Harnessing “Green / Circular” feed ingredients

Hua et al., 2019 USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

 Holistic assessment of novel ingredients
T h e r m a l G r o w t h C o e f f ic ie n t
3 .5 1 .0 2 .0 d cd
c bc bc b

F e e d in t a k e ( g /f is h /d a y )
F e e d g a in r a t io ( F C R )
ab a
3 .0 a a
0 .8
1 .5
2 .5
0 .6
2 .0
1 .0
1 .5 0 .4

1 .0 0 .5
0 .2
0 .5

0 .0 0 .0 0 .0
0% 1 2 .5 % 25% 3 7 .5 % 48% 0% 1 2 .5 % 25% 3 7 .5 % 48% 0% 1 2 .5 % 25% 3 7 .5 % 48%

L e u c in e a m in o p e p t id a s e (U /m g )
800 2000 5
c b

p e p t1 m R N A e x p r e s s io n
b b
abc bc
N g a in ( m g /k g /d a y )

4
600
ab a 1500
a
a 3
a
a a
400 1000
a
2 a

200 500
1

0 0 0
0% 1 2 .5 % 25% 3 7 .5 % 48% 0% 1 2 .5 % 25% 3 7 .5 % 48% 0% 1 2 .5 % 25% 3 7 .5 % 48%

Rajesh / Kamalam et al., 2022 USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

Holistic assessment of novel ingredients

4
C u rre n t s u d y

P e re ra e t a l.,1 9 9 5
3
K a u s h ik a n d L u q u e s t, 1 9 8 0

K ie s s lin g a n d A s k b ra n d t, 1 9 9 3

TGC
2 K ie s s lin g a n d A s k b ra n d t, 1 9 9 3
A a s e t a l., 2 0 0 6

L e B la n c a n d S ilv e rm a n 2 0 1 7
1
H a rd y e t a l. 2 0 1 8

L e e e t a l. 2 0 2 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

% B M in c lu s io n

We concluded that 12.5% of this novel SCP can be safely included in rainbow trout diets
The potential to enhance soybean inclusion needs to be examined
Rajesh / Kamalam et al., 2022 USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023
Re-evaluating micronutrient requirements
Pyridoxine (Vitamin B6) requirement in Salmonids
Phase I Phase II Phase III
Halver, 1957 Woodward, 1990 Hemre et al., 2014

REQUIREMENT 10 2 4.5
(mg/kg)

FEED TYPE H440 purified Guelph purified Plant protein based

(Semi-solid) (Steam Pelleted) (Extruded)

RESPONSE Weight gain Weight gain Weight gain

CRITERION Absence of No pathology PLP retention
pathology ALAT/ASAT ALAT/ASAT
Mortality activities activities

TRANSITION Leaching exaggeration Extrusion loss

Qualitative-Quantitative Fish meal replacement

NRC, 1981; Woodward, 1994; NRC, 2011; Hansen, 2015 USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023
Tracking the ‘Invisible’ Impact of Feeds

Kalsa rivulet, Gola

1200 m above msl

%CP

%CHO

Exp. Duration: 100 days

Temperature: 17-21oC

Kamalam et al. (Unpublished) USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

Tracking the ‘Invisible’ Impact of Feeds
100
SIMPER top 5 contributors
80
Tenericutes Cetobacterium (34.5%)
% Abundance of phyla

Bacteroidetes Flavobacterium (18.4%)

60
Verrucomicrobia Aeromonadaceae_Unclassified (15.1%)
Cyanobacteria
40 Aeromonas (14.1%)
Planctomycetes
Fusobacteria
Rhodobacter (2.8%)
20
Proteobacteria

0
Wild Captive-HP Captive-LP

α-Indices Sr 50P 25P

Observed OTUs 536 355 340
PD whole tree 36.0 24.4 23.4
Equitability 0.24 0.41 0.38
Shannon diversity 2.18 3.45 3.21

Kamalam et al. (Unpublished) USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

 Nutritional interventions for health / stress management
Can a functional feed supplement mitigate temperature stress in rainbow trout?

Firstly, the effectiveness of dietary supplementation was confirmed

Anupam / Kamalam et al. (Unpublished) USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023
Nutritional interventions for health / stress management

Functional feed supplementation could enhance the

thermal safety margin of rainbow trout by 4.5oC by
improving antioxidant potential, oxygen carrying
capacity and concomitant lowering of metabolic rate

Anupam / Kamalam et al. (Unpublished) USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

Special purpose additives – Rainbow trout brooder feed

Nutrient
supplementation

Control Test

3 years old Females & Males

2021-2022 season

Sharma / Kamalam et al. (Unpublished) USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

Special purpose additives – Rainbow trout brooder feed

Variables Control feed Brooder feed

Relative fecundity (eggs/kg) 1431 1696

Fertilization rate (%) 90-95 95-99

Hatching duration Protracted Synchronized
Yolk absorption duration Protracted Synchronized

Egg weight (mg) 60.2 69.9

Egg diameter (mm) 4.9 5.4

Supplementation of vital nutrients improved the breeding

performance, spawning response and gamete quality

Sharma / Kamalam et al. (Unpublished) USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

Special purpose additives – Rainbow trout brooder feed

In the test group, GSI

variation was less, with
proportionately bigger eggs

Sharma / Kamalam et al. (Unpublished) USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

 Follow the BASICS – Meet nutritional requirements
Comparative validation of the performance efficiency and cost-effectiveness of a
nutritionally balanced rainbow trout grower feed under field conditions

Farm site: Anantnag, Kashmir

Raceway dimension: 45 m3
Source water: Lidder river
Water temperature: 2-19oC
Trial period: 9 months
ICAR-DCFR GENERIC Initial mean weight: 33 g
45% Protein 40% Protein
18% Lipid 10% Lipid Stocking density: 1750 nos. (1.3 kg/m3)

Kamalam et al. (Unpublished) USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

 Follow the BASICS – Meet nutritional requirements
DCFR GEN
450
400
Final weight: 405 vs. 290 g (+40%)
350
FINAL MEAN WEIGHT (G)

300
Biomass: 708 vs. 507 kg (+40%)
250 Biomass gain: 651 vs. 450 kg (+45%)
200
Productivity: 16 vs. 11 kg/m3 (+40%)
150
100
50
0
0 11 37 78 108 134 146 170 180 194 210 226 268
DAYS OF CULTURE

Kamalam et al. (Unpublished)

IMPACT analysis for FARMERS
ICAR-DCFR GENERIC
Market Size

Faster growth / more production (201 kg; +45%)

Better feed utilisation (0.99 vs. 1.44; -31%)

Increase in profit per tonne of fish - Rs. 1.16 lakh

Water foot print (2.99 vs. 4.18 lakh litres; -39%)

Water savings per crop - 47.5 million L

Culture period reduction - Minimum 2 months

Kamalam et al. (Unpublished) USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

 Feed Formulation - Basics are Constant

Choose the appropriate ingredients and right proportions / mixtures

Improve the digestibility of ingredients and bioavailability of nutrients
Balance digestible protein and energy content
Consider husbandry interactions and optimize feeding regimes

More focus on nutrients along with raw materials

Move from FMFO replacement to complementarity
Undertake holistic approaches for feed assessment

USSEC, Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

 Aqua Tech Talks: Fish Nutrition Workshop

THANK YOU
Acknowledgements
bs.kamalam@icar.gov.in
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
bijunut@hotmail.com ICAR-DCFR Fish Nutrition Team
Growel Feeds Pvt. Ltd. and other industry partners

Hyderabad, 22 February 2023

 EMERGING NUTRITIONAL
CONCEPTS AND RESEARCH GAPS
TARGETING NEXT-GENERATION
AQUA FEEDS

K.P. Kumaraguru vasagam

Principal Scientist, Fish Nutrition
ICAR-CIBA, Chennai, INDIA
 Structure of my talk
• Background
• NGF concept
• Research Priorities and focus area to achieve that concept
• Newer ingredients
• Nutrient requirements
• Ingredient standards
• Feed additives
• Nutritional concepts
• Challenges
• Take home message
Background

• In general nutrition studies date backs to 18th centaury – but there

were no much studies in fish nutrition.
• Knowledge about fish nutrition lags behind that of man and his
domesticated animals
• Fish nutrition - middle of the twentieth century – spurred up by rapid
expansion of fed aquaculture
• We know where we have been in the past; have quite a good
understanding about present.
• Now it is time to foresee what are the immediate, pressing
challenges and problems that need to be solved?
Next generation aquafeeds

IT IS A ONGOING CONCEPT PROCESS

Research Priorities/ Focus Area
 1. Newer Ingredients in to the ingredient basket
• Ingredient are the backbone of the aquafeeds (Around 85% of feed cost)
• Around 200 plus including their own varieties
• Precise data on nutrient composition in relation to processing methods
• Digestible nutrients (species specific)
• Availability, Price information's
• Agriculture by-products & Animal by-products
• Algal meals - Seaweed, Azolla, duckweed, micro algal meal
• Insect meals – BSF meal, Silkworm meal etc.
• Microbial proteins –blugreens, yeast, biofloc meal etc

Blended ingredients are found optimum satisfying the nutrient requirements –

single ingredient dependence is outdated
 Biofloc Meal
We hypothesised that excess biofloc could be harvested and used as feed ingredient in speciality feeds.
There is no much information on it nutritional composition, contributing organism and its production
factors.

Amino acid profile (%of protein) & minerals of biofloc meal

produced in varying C:N ratio

Biofloc Biofloc Mehade

Biofloc Biofloc Soybea
AA C:N: 10 C:N: 20 n Fish
C:N: 10 C:N: 20 n meal
Shrimp Shrimp meal
LYS 4.3 4.8 4.8 5.5 7.8 5.2
MET 3.7 3.2 3.6 3.7 2.9 1.1
 Nutrient requirements
• Majority of the nutrient requirement data were generated at different set of
conditions which are not finding much value in the present conditions
• The reassessment of macronutrients on priority basis – with modern methods
• Assessment of micro nutrient requirements – There is no much information

• Species specific
• Environment specific
• Genetic line specific
• Life stage specific
 Ingredient standards with respect to feed
processing

• Plant based ingredients have limitations due

to ANFs
• Presents constraints in processing and in
achieving water stability.
• Standards on inclusion levels as individual
and in combinations needs to be established
 The use of feed additives
• These micro ingredients makes the feed complete and bring varieties in feed
• Binders
Technological
• Antioxidants
additives
• Mold inhibitors
• Vitamins
• Minerals
Nutritional • Amino acids
additives • Essential fatty acids
• Cholesterol
• Dietary pigments
• Enzymes
Zootechnical • Probiotics /prebiotics
additives • Attractants and palletisers
• Immunostimulants

• Lot of research needs to be done for optimizing the inclusion levels

Nutritional Concepts
 Nanoemulsion based nutrient delivery systems

• Functional nutrients - Poor nutrient delivery and limited bio-

availablity further add cost, and there is a need for a intact
delivery
• Nanoemulsion-based delivery systems have been utilized to
efficiently deliver nutrients with a great potential Shrimp fed Astaxanthin
• Nanoemulsion-based astaxanthin and EFA delivery
targeting shrimp performance and final product quality
• Microfluidization – oil in water -<200 nano
• Thermodynamically stable

Shrimp fed normal feed

• Concept has been approved for validation with without astaxanthin

funding support from DBT, Govt. of India

 Solid state fermentation

• With respect to plant proteins

Pilot Scale Solid State Fermenter
• Reduction in ANFs
• Increase in macronutrient content
and significant increase in
digestibility
• Alters the texture of the material
• Blended selective microbes
(consortium)
• Integration with feed processing
will be the challenge

Raw Soybean meal

 Nutrient laden nano particles
• The use of nano minerals in livestock nutrition has shown
promising results/ performance, nutrient bioavailability, and
immunity status of animals.
• More research efforts are still needed to validate nanomaterials’
effectiveness, efficacy, and safety in aquafeed

Plant extracts or biological microorganisms

as a simple substitute for chemical and
physical processes

Selenium and Zinc nano particles are

produced using various plant materials –
Jatropha mucus

Photo credit: Abdelnour et al., 2021

 DCA for better Carbohydrate utilization
Adoption fish towards high carb diets

• Many fish are poor users of dietary carbohydrates,

and often display prolonged hyperglycemia
• The effects are excessive fat accumulation, growth
retardation etc. feeding them with high
carbohydrate diets for a long period
• Promoting complete glucose catabolism in fish,
especially those fed on high carbohydrate diets, is
an important research topic for fish nutritionists.
• Dichloroacetate (DCA) was found to promote
glucose metabolism and reduce fat accumulation
• CIBA planning for a proposal for evaluating with our
candidate species DCA improves insulin sensitivity and inhibits
glycolipid conversion (Credit :Luo et al, 2022; in
Tilapia fish)
 Probiotics /prebiotics

• Probiotics – in use for long time in the aquaculture

industry
• Probiotics play a wide spectrum functions (such as
decrease diseases and stress, enhance immunity,
modulate gut microbiota, helps in nutrition, improve
water quality, etc.) in host body.
• Most of these probiotics are derived from terrestrial
sources from environment in which aquatic animals
live
• They have limited ability to settle within the host's
defense system and provide beneficial effects
• Gut probiotics - Host-associated probiotics (HAPs)
Credit: Hasan and Banerjee, 2020
 Dietary immunostimulants

• A strategy to boost the natural

immune system against wide range
of pathogens as preventive
measure.
• Mostly microbial origin – given
through feed
• CIBASTIM – immunostimulant for
shrimp developed by CIBA
 Dietary enzymes

• Fish feed can be supplemented with exogenous protease, lipsase, amylases,

and cellulase.
• Supplementation of exogenous non-starch polysaccharides degrading
enzymes and phytases is known to improve digestion of plan based feed.

Several products are in market for use in farm

level

The challenging part of enzyme is its application

in the feed before processing
 Nutritional programing (NP)
• Adapting, rather than amending the diet, can be a promising strategy to promote
sustainable feeding strategies in aquaculture.
• Nutritional programming at early stage may be the strategy for total replacement
of fish-based diet
• Nutritional programming (NP) is considered a promising approach that can
counteract the negative effects of dietary plant protein (PP) by introducing PP to
fish in the early developmental stages.
• CIBA – proposed to test this approach in highly carnivorous seabass
 Mixotrophic feeding using engineered rearing
systems
Circular self cleaning ponds
Gravity driven solid disposal, interconnections
and recirculation options
Automated feeding
Sensor controlled aeration
Minimal water exchange
Bacteria, micro algae, copepods and other
beneficial invertebrates
Moderate stocking density
Two stage farming
Monthly harvest monthly stocking

Ultimate aim- better feed utilization and maximum nutrient recovery

 Challenges
• Innovative, rapid, and high throughput methods for ingredient and feed quality
evaluation
• Reliable evaluation models and protocols should be adopted
• Majority of the research parked only in papers – due to lack of practicality issues –
• unrealistic inclusion levels which may be not be economically viable
• Tested with purified ingredient diet which lacks practical value
• No resources and support for basic studies / nutrient requirement data
 Thank you …

Acknowledgments
• Dr K. Ambasankar, HOD, Nutrition, Genetics & Biotechnology Division
• Dr J. Syamdayal, PS, Nutrition Section
• Dr P. Sandeep, Scientist, Nutrition Section
• Mr T. Sivaramakrishnan, Scientist, Nutrition Section