Processed feed pea and canola meal for blue shrimp diets

More documents

Recommendations

Info

100 ( ) L.E. Cruz-Suarez et al.rAquaculture 196 2001 87–104 manufacture. Allan Ž 1997. cites unpublished data that show an improvement in the nutritional value of Dunn peas Ž a tannin containing P. satiÕum variety. through dehulling and extrusion when included in the diets of silver perch, an omnivorous fish. In the present study, no particular benefit was obtained by dehulling the pea, perhaps because the field pea strains used to produce the experimental meals have been improved. Eusebio Ž 1991. also found that dehulling cowpeas and rice beans Žleguminous seeds. had no significant effect on growth and survival of Pen. monodon although apparent protein digestibility of rice beans but not cowpeas was improved. Shrimp may actually be more tolerant of certain anti-nutritional seed coat compounds than other species. Smith et al. Ž 1999. reported digestibility coefficients of field peas in tiger shrimp of 80% for IADMD and 91% for IAPD in tiger shrimp. The IADMD value is lower and the IAPD value is higher than those obtained in present study Ž88–92% and 79–85%, respectively.Ž Table 5 .. The lower feed consumption of the extruded pea diets did not reduce growth, suggesting higher energy availability from these diets ŽCuzon and Guillaume, 1997 .. The higher dry matter digestibility of extruded peas also suggests a higher digestible energy value for gelatinized starch resulting from the effects of extrusion cooking. Davis and Arnold Ž 1993. reported that the gelatinization of starch in sorghum significantly improved digestibility in Pen. Õannamei. However, Davis and Arnold Ž 1995. found that starch gelatinization did not necessarily correspond to increased energy digestibility of the cereal grains wheat and rice as observed for corn and sorghum. The different responses were attributed to variable effects of wet and dry extrusion conditions with different grains. In the present study gelatinization of starch by wet extrusion had a small positive effect on digestibility and performance, although the raw pea meal was quite acceptable and perhaps the extrusion costs would not be recovered. Cousin et al. Ž 1996. also found differences in native and gelatinized starch digestibility measured both in vivo and in vitro depending on the source of dietary starch with reference to the amyloseramylopectin composition and its intrinsic starch granule characteristics. The proportion of amylose ranges between 23.5% and 35% in feed pea starch compared to over 66% in wrinkled canning type peas Ž Castell et al., 1996 .. According to Grosjean et al. Ž 1998. lower apparent energy digestibility in pigs of wrinkled compared to feed pea is partly due to the amyloseramylopectin ratio. The data reported by Cousin et al. Ž 1996. comparing high amylopectin and high amylose corn starch and wheat starch by in vivo and in vitro assay with L. Õannamei also showed lower starch digestibility from the high amylose source. The feed peas used in this study can be considered as having an amylose content closer to that of wheat starch Ž 23% ., which is also highly digestible in both native and gelatinized forms ŽCruz-Suarez ´ et al., 1994; Davis and Arnold, 1995; Cousin et al., 1996 .. Infrared heat treatment did not increase starch gelatinization and digestibility, although feed intake and growth was considerably higher and food conversion was good with the micronized pea diet. The higher growth was approximately 16% higher than the control and 20% higher than the raw and extruded pea fed groups. Therefore, the beneficial effects of micronization may have resulted from the development of compounds that enhanced palatability andror the elimination of off flavors for blue shrimp.
( ) L.E. Cruz-Suarez et al.rAquaculture 196 2001 87–104 101 Gomes et al. Ž 1995. reported a 10% increase in protein and energy digestibility from micronizing full fat soybeans and a 21% increase in energy digestibility, but not protein, from micronizing wheat fed to rainbow trout. The infrared heat treatment and low moisture tempering were perhaps not severe enough to improve starch digestibility in the present study. Metabolizable energy contents in peas for P. stylirostris were higher than those for swine and poultry Ž 13.6 and 11.1 kJrg according to Castell et al., 1996 .. Higher metabolizable energy values in shrimp than in mammalian and avian species are in accord with their mode of excreting nitrogen in form of ammonium ŽCuzon and Guillaume, 1997 .. Metabolizable energy content in peas increased from 15.4 to 16.4 kJrg by extruding the pea meal most likely due to the improved digestibility of gelatinized starch. Dry matter and protein digestibility of the extruded canola diet was found to be very good and similar to that of a practical diet formulation that included a high quality fish meal. These results agree with those of Buchanan et al. Ž 1997. who reported on the successful use of canola meal in Pen. monodon diets at both a 20% inclusion level, and 64% inclusion with the addition an enzyme mixture. Satoh et al. Ž 1998. reported that extrusion processing of canola meal improved its nutritive value as measured by growth of chinook salmon in sea water. Protein and lipid contents were increased and phytic acid and glucosinolates, that interfere with nutrient bioavailability and thyroid function, respectively, were partially degraded. The results of this study suggest that extruded feed peas and canola would complement each other in practical shrimp diets. Co-extruded rapeseed and peas have replaced up to 66% of brown fish meals in rainbow trout diets Ž Gomes et al., 1995 .. This study demonstrates the acceptable nutritional value of peas and canola meal as ingredients in diets for the production of shrimp, since they could replace common shrimp feed ingredients. Inclusion of peas and canola meal in shrimp diets will therefore be a function of diet formulation and commodity prices. The effects of the micronizing process on pea meals deserve more research to investigate how the process could increase feed consumption more than that required to compensate for reduced dietary energy availability. Acknowledgements We thank shrimp farms Cristo Rey and Aquastrat, Sinaloa, Mexico for providing ´ juvenile Litopenaeus stylirostris for the growth and digestibility experiments, respectively, and Servando Quiroz B., Claudio Guajardo B. and Norma E. Luna for their help in formulating, analyzing and testing the shrimp feeds. The peas were provided by Paul Adelizi of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. We express our gratitude to Francis and Tony Gaudet of Belle Pulses for dehulling peas, Connie Phillips and Kevin Swallow of the Alberta Food Processing Centre, Leduc, for extruding the meals and Mark Pickard and Gordon Sellar of Infraready Products, Saskatoon, for micronizing the peas. We thank the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers and the Canadian International Grains Institute for funding this study.
Page 1 and 2: Ž . Aquaculture 196 2001 87-104 ww
Page 3 and 4: 2. Material and methods ( ) L.E. Cr
Page 5 and 6: ( ) L.E. Cruz-Suarez et al.rAquacul
Page 9 and 10: Table 4 Growth experiment results
Page 11 and 12: Table 5 Apparent dry matter, protei
Page 13: ( ) L.E. Cruz-Suarez et al.rAquacul

Processed feed pea and canola meal for blue shrimp diets

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?