Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T12:12:55.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ingredient apparent digestibility coefficients for the Australian short-finned eel (Anguilla australis australis, Richardson)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

K. Engin  and
C. G. Carter
K. Engin
Affiliation:
School of Aquaculture, Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
C. G. Carter
Affiliation:
School of Aquaculture, Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Fish meal is the most widely used protein source in commercial eel foods and information on the nutritive value of more economical protein sources is needed in order to improve cost-effectiveness of diets. This investigation was conducted to determine apparent digestibility coefficients of available plant and animal meals for juvenile Australian short-finned eel (Anguilla australis australis, Richardson). The suitability of a modified Guelph-type settlement faecal collector in eel digestibility studies was assessed. Animal by-product (spray-dried meat solubles; blood meal; high fat poultry meal) and plant protein (soya bean; canola; maize gluten; lupin; field pea) meals were mixed with a reference diet and marker (0·3: 0·69: 0·01) and the resultant test diets given to the juvenile eels (3·15 (s.e. 0·42) g) at 0·05 live weight per day. The reference diet and all the test diets were well accepted by the fish. Apparent digestibility coefficients for crude protein (ADCCP) for maize gluten meal (MGM), lupin meal (LM) and blood meal (BM) were found to be 0·97, 0·96 and 0·96 respectively and they were significantly (P < 0·001) higher than that for the other ingredients. However, apparent digestibilities for dry matter (ADCDM) and energy (ADCkJ) were significantly (P < 0·0001) higher for animal by-products than for plant proteins except for maize gluten meal. This was explained by the higher content of nitrogen free extractives in the former plant proteins. There was a strong positive correlation between ADCDM and ADCkJ for all ingredients (P < 0·01). Weaker positive correlations were also found between ADCCP and ADCDM and between ADCCP and ADCkJ. Similar results obtained for warm water species using similar faecal collection techniques and over limited eel digestibility data support the suitability of the modified Guelph-type settlement collector system in digestibility studies with juvenile eels.

Keywords

Anguilla australis australisanimal proteindigestibilityfish cultureplant protein.
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , December 2002 , pp. 401 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allan, G. L., Rowland, S. J., Parkinson, S., Stone, D. A. J. and Jantrarotai, W. 1999. Nutrient digestibility for juvenile silver perch Bidyanus bidyanus: development of methods. Aquaculture 170: 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. S., Lall, S. P., Anderson, D. M. and McNiven, M. A. 1993. Evaluation of protein quality in fish meals by chemical and biological assays. Aquaculture 115: 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, P., Brattas, E. L., Olli, J. and Krogdahl, A. 1989. Soybean meal carbohydrates appear to restrict the utilisation of nutrients by Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Proceedings of the third international symposium on feeding and nutrition in fish, 28 August to 1 September, Toba, Japan, pp. 273–280.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1995. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. AOAC International, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Bell, J. M. 1993. Factors affecting the nutritional value of canola meal: a review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 73: 679–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bligh, E.G. and Dyer, W. G. 1959. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Canadian Journal of Biochemistry and Physiology 37: 911–917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, D., Landegham, K. van and Schuele, M. 1997. Australian aquaculture. Industry profile for selected species. ABARE research report, 97·3. ABARE, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Bureau, D. P., Harris, A. M. and Cho, C. Y. 1999. Apparent digestibility of rendered animal protein ingredients for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 180: 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bureau, D. P., Kirkland, J. B. and Cho, C. Y. 1998. The partitioning of energy from digestible carbohydrate by rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). In Energy metabolism in farm animals (ed. K. J. McCracken, E. F. Unsworth, and A. Wylie, R. G.), pp. 163–166. CAB International Press, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Carter, C. G. and Hauler, R. C. 2000. Fish meal replacement by plant meals in extruded feeds for Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Aquaculture 185: 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, C. Y. and Cowey, C. B. 1991. Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss . In Handbook of nutrient requirements of finfish (ed. Wilson, R. P.), pp. 131–143. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
Cho, C. Y. and Kaushik, S. J. 1990. Nutritional energetics in fish: energy and energy utilisation in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). World Review of Nutrition and Diet 61: 132–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, C. Y. and Slinger, S. J. 1979. Apparent digestibility measurements in feedstuffs for rainbow trout. Proceedings of the world symposium on finfish nutrition and fishfeed technology, Hamburg, vol. 11, pp. 239–247.Google Scholar
Cho, C. Y., Slinger, S. J. and Bayley, H. S. 1982. Bioenergetics of salmonid fishes: energy intake, expenditure and productivity. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 73B: 25–41.Google Scholar
Choubert, G., De La Noüe, J. and Luquet, P. 1982. Digestibility in fish: improved device for the automatic collection of faeces. Aquaculture 29: 185–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowey, C. B. and Walton, M. J. 1989. Intermediary metabolism. In Fish nutrition, second edition (ed. Halver, J. E.), pp. 259–329. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Degani, G., Viola, S. and Yehuda, Y. 1997. Apparent digestibility coefficients of protein sources for carp, Cyprinus carpio L. Aquaculture Research 28: 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engin, K. and Carter, C. G. 2001. Ammonia and urea excretion rates of juvenile Australian short-finned eel (Anguilla australis australis) as influenced by dietary protein level. Aquaculture 194: 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furukawa, A. and Tsukahara, H. 1966. On the acid digestion method for the determination of chromic oxide as an index substance in the study of digestibility of fish feed. Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries 32: 502–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Gallego, M., Akharbach, H. and Higuera, M. de la. 1998. Use of protein sources alternative to fish meal in diets with amino acids supplementation for the European eel (Anguilla anguilla). Animal Science 66: 285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Gallego, M., Bazoco, J., Suárez, M. D. and Sanz, A. 1995. Utilization of dietary carbohydrates by fish: a comparative study in eel and trout. Animal Science 61: 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, E. F., Oliva-Teles, A., Gouveia, A. and Rema, P. 1998. In vivo and in vitro digestibility of diets and feedstuffs for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 14: 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajen, W. E., Higss, D. A., Beames, R. M. and Dosanjh, B. S. 1993. Digestibility of various feedstuffs by post-juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in sea water. 2. Measurement of digestibility. Aquaculture 112: 333–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, R. W. 1996. Alternative protein sources for salmon and trout diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 59: 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higuera, M. de la, García-Gallego, M., Sanz, A., Hidalgo, M. C. and Suárez, M. D. 1989. Utilisation of dietary protein by the eel (Anguilla anguilla): optimum dietary protein levels. Aquaculture 79: 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilton, J. W. and Slinger, S. J. 1986. Digestibility and utilisation of canola meal in practical-type diets for rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43: 1149–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. L., Parson, C. M., Fahey Jr, G. C., Merchen, N. R. and Aldrich, C. G. 1998. Effects of species raw material source, ash contents and processing temperature on amino acid digestibility of animal-by product meals by cecectomised roosters and ileally cannulated dogs. Journal of Animal Science 76: 1112–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaushik, S. J. and Cowey, C. B. 1991. Dietary factors affecting nitrogen excretion by fish. In Nutritional strategies and aquaculture waste (ed. Cowey, C. B. and Cho, C. Y.). Proceedings of the first international symposium on nutritional strategies in management of aquaculture waste, 5-8 June, University of Guelph, Canada, pp. 3-19,.Google Scholar
Kaushik, S. J. and Médale, F. 1994. Energy requirements, utilisation and dietary supply to salmonids. Aquaculture 124: 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaushik, S. J., Médale, F., Fauconneau, B. and Blanc, D. 1989. Effects of digestible carbohydrates on protein/energy utilisation and on glucose metabolism in rainbow trout (R., Salmo gairdneri) Aquaculture 79: 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGoogan, B. B. and Reigh, R. C. 1996. Apparent digestibility of selected ingredients in red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) diets. Aquaculture 141: 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, L. A. and Loosli, J. K. 1969. Animal nutrition. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, T. 1996. Utilising rendered products: petfood. In The original recyclers (ed. Franco, D. A. and Swanson, W.), pp. 203–223. The Animal Protein Industry, The Fats and Proteins Research Foundation and The National Renderers Association, Alexandria.Google Scholar
Morales, A. E., Cardenete, G., Higuera, M. de la and Sanz, A. 1994. Effects of dietary protein source on growth, feed conversion and energy utilisation in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss . Aquaculture 124: 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mwachireya, S. A., Beames, R. M., Higgs, D. A. and Dosanjh, B. S. 1999. Digestibility of canola protein products derived from the physical, enzymatic and chemical processing of commercial canola meal in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum) held in fresh water. Aquaculture Nutrition 5: 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, H., Flores, R. A. and Johnson, L. A. 1997. Preparation of fish feed ingredients — reduction of carateonids in corn gluten. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 45: 2088–2092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, S. B., Lee, P. S. and Carter, C. G. 2001. Validation of a technique for determining apparent digestibility in large (up to 5 kg) Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in seacages. Aquaculture 201: 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, E., Kinzinger, S. and Rodehutscord, M. 1995. Influence of the proportion of poultry slaughter byproducts and of untreated or hydrothermically treated legume seeds in diets for rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum), on apparent digestibilities of their energy and organic compounds. Aquaculture Nutrition 1: 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pongmaneerat, J. and Watanabe, T. 1993. Effect of extrusion processing on the utilisation of soybean meal diets for rainbow trout. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 59: 1407–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Refstie, S., Storebakken, T. and Roem, A. J. 1998. Feed consumption and conversion in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fed diets with fish meal, extracted soybean meal or soybean meal with reduced content of oligosaccharides, trypsin inhibitors, lectins and soy antigens. Aquaculture 162: 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robaina, L., Izquierdo, M. S., Moyano, F. J., Socorro, J., Vergara, J. M., Montero, D. and Fernández-Palacios, H. 1995. Soybean and lupin seed meals as protein sources in diets for gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata): nutritional and histological implications. Aquaculture 130: 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, O., Greuel, E. and Pfeffer, E. 1984. Digestibility of crude protein and organic matter of potential sources of dietary protein for eels (Anguilla anguilla L. ). Aquaculture 41: 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, G. J. da and Oliva-Teles, A. 1998. Apparent digestibility coefficients of feedstuffs in seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) juveniles. Aquatic Living Resources 11: 187–191.Google Scholar
Silva, S. S. de and Anderson, T. A. 1995. Fish nutrition in aquaculture. Chapman and Hall Aquaculture Series, London.Google Scholar
Silva, S. S. de, Gunasekera, R. M. and Gooley, G. 2000. Digestibility and amino acid availability of three protein-rich ingredient-incorporated diets by Murray cod Maccullochella peelii peelii (Mitchell) and the Australian shortfin eel, Anguilla australis (Richardson). Aquaculture Research 31: 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spannhof, L. and Kühne, H. 1977. Untersuchungen zur verwertung verschiedener futtermischung durch europaische aele (A. anguilla). Archiv für Tierernährung 27: 517–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spannhof, L. and Plantikow, H. 1983. Studies on carbohydrate digestion in rainbow trout. Aquaculture 30: 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spyridakis, P., Metailler, R., Gabaudan, J. and Riaza, A. 1989. Studies on nutrient digestibility in European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). 1. Methodological aspects concerning faeces collection. Aquaculture 77: 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stickney, R. R. and Shumway, S.E. 1974. Occurrence of cellulase activity in the stomach of fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 6: 779–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storebakken, T., Kvien, I. S., Shearer, K. D., Grisdale-Helland, B., Helland, S. J. and Berge, G. M. 1998. The apparent digestibility of diets containing fish meal, soybean meal fed to Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): evaluation of different faecal collection methods. Aquaculture 169: 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugiura, S. H., Dong, F. M., Rathbone, C. K. and Hardy, R. W. 1998. Apparent protein digestibility and mineral availabilities in various feed ingredients for salmonid feeds. Aquaculture 159: 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tibbetts, S. M., Lall, S. P. and Anderson, D. M. 2000. Dietary protein requirement of juvenile American eel (Anguilla rostrata) fed practical diets. Aquaculture 186: 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, T., Takeuchi, T., Satoh, S. and Kiron, V. 1996. Digestible crude protein contents in various feedstuffs determined with four freshwater fish species. Fisheries Science 62: 278–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wee, K. L. and Tacon, A. G. J. 1989. Feeds and feeding in fish culture. Workshop series, National Key Centre for Teaching and Research in Aquaculture, University of Tasmania at Launceston.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. P. 1994. Utilisation of dietary carbohydrate by fish. Aquaculture 124: 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. P. and Poe, W. E. 1985. Apparent digestible protein and energy coefficients of common feed ingredients for channel catfish. Progressive Fish-Culturist 47: 154–158.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, T., Akimoto, A., Kishi, S., Unuma, T. and Akiyama, T. 1998. Apparent and true availabilities of amino acids from several protein sources for fingerling rainbow trout, common carp and red sea bream. Fisheries Science 64: 448–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, T., Ikeda, K., Unuma, T. and Akiyama, T. 1997. Apparent availabilities of amino acids and minerals from several protein sources for fingerling rainbow trout. Fisheries Science 63: 995–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar