In contrast to extensive and semi-intensive farming systems where the cultured species derive all or a substantial part of their nutrient needs from naturally available pond food organisms, fish and shrimp maintained under intensive clear-water culture conditions (ie. cement tanks or raceways, and cages suspended in open water bodies) are totally dependent on the external provision of a nutritionally ‘complete’ diet throughout their culture cycle (for definition see 1.1.4).
The development of artificial diets (ie. complete pelleted feeds) for use within intensive aquaculture production systems has been based largely on the nutritional and manufacturing techniques pioneered and developed by the intensive poultry industry. Whilst this ‘borrowed’ technology may suffice for the development of complete diets intended for use within intensive clear-water aquaculture systems and for fish species which rapidly consume their food (ie. such as salmonids), the aquatic environment poses many technological and nutritional difficulties for the aquaculture feed technologist; for example, developing artificial diets for use within semi-intensive earth pond production systems (due to the presence of natural live food organisms and the difficulties of assessing their role in the overall nutritional balance of the cultivated species), and developing rations for shrimp and fish species which have very slow demersal feeding habits and who require to masticate their food externally prior to ingestion (due to difficulties of feed disintegration and loss of water-soluble nutrients through leaching). Furthermore, in contrast to the intensive poultry industry, where basic dietary nutrient requirements (including those for metabolizable energy) are well established, there is scant information on the basic dietary nutrient requirements of the major cultivated aquaculture species (Tacon, 1987). At present, these short comings are overcome in-part by formulating diets with a high inherent nutrient safety factor; the use of which being economically justifiable only because of the generally high market value of the major commercially cultivated aquaculture species (ie. marine shrimp and fish, salmonids, freshwater prawns). Clearly, this situation must be rectified if maximum economic benefit is to be gained from the farming system employed.
It must be stated at the outset that the success of a complete diet feeding strategy based on the use of a dry or semi-moist pelleted feed is dependent on five important factors, namely:
The nutritional characteristics of the diet formulated (ie. ingredient selection, nutrient level, digestibility and quality control).
The manufacturing process used to produce the formulated ration and the physical characteristics of the resultant diet (ie. cold pelleting, steam pelleting, grinding, microencapsulation, air dried, freeze dried, sun dried, pellet, feed mash, feed size, shape, colour, texture, bouyancy or spacial behaviour within the water column, and water stability).
The handling and storage of the manufactured diet prior to usage on the farm (ie. length of storage, environmental storage conditions - temperature, humidity, irradiation, ventilation, and packing material used).
The feeding method employed (ie. hand or mechanised feeding, feeding frequency, feeding rate - feeding tables, satiation feeding, or demand feeding).
The water quality of the culture system (ie. temperature, photoperiod, dissolved oxygen and mineral concentration, salinity, turbidity and water circulation pattern).
Each of the above mentioned factors hold equal importance; the failure of one reducing the effectiveness of the others. Clearly, the nutritionist must work in tandem with the feed processor and aquaculture biologist if maximum nutritional and economic benefit is to be gained from complete diet feeding.
In this review emphasis will therefore be placed on the multi-disciplinary approach toward complete diet feeding, and in particular concerning the resolution of those nutritional and technological problems unique to aquaculture, rather than reciting well established animal feed formulation and manufacturing techniques. Readers requiring detailed information on the commercial formulation and fabrication of complete feeds should consult the excellent reviews of ADCP (1980, 1983), Cho, Cowey and Watanabe (1985), Coll Morales (1983), Crampton (1985), Halver and Tiews (1979), New (1987), Palmer-Jones and Halliday (1971), Pfost and Pickering (1976), and Robinson and Wilson (1985).
The following factors should be considered when formulating a practical fish or shrimp ration for use within a intensive aquaculture system:
Market value of the aquaculture species to be farmed: as a rule of thumb feed cost should not exceed 20–25% of the farm gate value of the cultured fish or shrimp (ADCP, 1983; Crampton, 1985); a high product market value justifying (if so required) the selection and use of more expensive and higher quality feed ingredients and feed manufacturing techniques (ie. such as the use of rehydratable expanded pelleted feeds for shrimp and marine flatfish, Cadena Roa et. al., 1982).
Feeding behaviour and digestive capacity of the species to be farmed: is the aquaculture species in question a carnivore, omnivore or herbivore; a benthic, pelagic or surface feeder; a day-time, twilight or nocturnal feeder; a visual or olfactory feeder; a moist or dry diet feeder; a rapid or slow feeder; and does the species in question have an acid secreting stomach and possess a full compliment of digestive enzymes. These factors, together with the proposed production unit (ie. tank, cage or earth pond) will dictate if a floating, slow-sinking or sinking feed is required, and will also determine the physical characteristics of the feed to be produced (ie. size, bouyancy, colour, texture, palatability and desired water stability). Similarly, the formulation of a diet for a stomachless fish species or a shrimp will necessitate the use of dietary phosphorus and calcium sources which release their native elements within an alkaline digestive environment (ie. such as the use of plant phytates, whey products and skim milk powder; Tacon, 1987).
Intended feed manufacturing process to be used: straight mixing, cold pelleting, conventional steam pelleting, expansion steam pelleting, flaking, crumbling or microencapsulation. For example, expansion steam pelleting requires the presence of relatively high amounts of starch containing cereal grains within the formulation so as to facilitate starch gelatinization and obtain the desired expansion texture; cold pelleting techniques require the use of special binders which do not have to be activated by heat (ie. such as the use of alginate binders within semi-moist pelleted fish feeds); and microencapsulation techniques for larval shrimp require the use of soluble and highly digestible dietary protein sources such as egg proteins and invertebrate tissue homogenates (Cho, Cowey and Watanabe, 1985).
Dietary nutrient requirements of the species to be farmed: including the dietary protein, essential amino acid, essential fatty acid, vitamin, mineral and energy (if known) requirements for all stages of the life cycle. For suggested dietary nutrient specifications see ADCP (1983), New (1987), NRC (1983) and Tacon (1987; Tables 15–18).
Available feed ingredient sources: nutrient content of available feed ingredients, including quality control and cost (at source and with transportation). The availability, nutritional quality and cost of individual feedstuffs (including micro-nutrient sources such as vitamins, minerals, amino acids, antioxidants and mould inhibitors) will dictate the type of ration which can be formulated. General quality control guides for feed ingredients intended for use within complete diets have been given by ANFAR (1985), Cho, Cowey and Watanabe (1985), Cockerell, Halliday and Morgan (1975), Cooley (1976), Deyoe (1976), Smith (1986) and Tacon (1987a). For example, Table 1 presents the recommended nutritional quality of fish meal and fish oil for salmonid rations.
Table 1. Recommended quality of fish meal and oil for salmonid diets 1
Compound | Level |
Fish meal 2 | |
Crude protein | >68 % |
Crude lipid | <10 % |
Ash | <13 % |
Salt | <3 % |
Ammonia-N | <0.2 % |
Moisture | <10 % |
Antioxidant (sprayed liquid form) | 200 ppm |
Steam processed, ground finer than 0.25 mm | |
Fish oil | |
Peroxide value | <5 meq/kg |
Anisidine value | <10 |
Total pesticides | <0.4 ppm |
Polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs) | <0.6 ppm |
Nitrogen | <1 % |
Moisture | <1 % |
Antioxidant (liquid) | 500 ppm |
1 From Cho (1980)
2 Heavy metal content of the meal should also be checked
Digestibility of the ingredient sources to the fish or shrimp species: the biological availability of the individual nutrients (ie. protein, amino acids, lipid, carbohydrate, minerals, vitamins and energy) contained within ingredient sources to the fish or shrimp species in question. For example, Table 2 summarises the apparent digestibility coefficients of some common feed ingredient sources for rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri).
Table 2. Apparent digestibility coefficients of selected ingredients for rainbow trout 1
Ingredient | Dry matter (%) | Crude protein (%) | Lipid (%) | Gross energy (%) |
Alfalfa | 39 | 87 | 71 | 43 |
Blood meal (spray dried) | 91 | 99 | - | 89 |
Blood meal (flame dried) | 55 | 16 | - | 50 |
Brewers dried yeast | 76 | 91 | - | 77 |
Corn, yellow | 23 | 95 | - | 39 |
Corn gluten feed | 23 | 92 | - | 29 |
Corn gluten meal | 80 | 96 | - | 83 |
Corn distillers dried soluble | 46 | 85 | 71 | 51 |
Fish meal, herring | 85 | 92 | 97 | 91 |
Hydrolysed feather meal | 75 | 58 | - | 70 |
Meat and bone meal | 78 | 85 | 73 | 85 |
Poultry by-product meal | 52 | 68 | 79 | 71 |
Rapeseed meal | 35 | 77 | - | 45 |
Soybean, full fat, cooked | 78 | 96 | 94 | 85 |
Soybean meal, dehulled | 74 | 96 | - | 75 |
Wheat middlings | 35 | 92 | - | 46 |
Whey, dehydrated | 97 | 96 | - | 94 |
Fish protein concentrate | 90 | 95 | - | 94 |
Soybean protein concentrate | 77 | 97 | - | 84 |
1 From Cho, Cowey and Watanabe (1985)
It must be emphasised here that the digestibility of individual feed ingredients will vary depending on 1) the physical and nutritional characteristics of the material under test, 2) the manufacturing process employed in the preparation of the feed ingredient, 3) the dietary inclusion level of the feed ingredient envisaged, 4) the developmental status and digestive capacity of the fish or shrimp species in question, 5) the feeding method employed (ie. force feeding, satiation feeding, or use of a restricted feeding table), and 6) the experimental technique employed for estimating nutrient digestibility (for review see Austreng, 1978; Cho, Slinger and Bayley, 1982; Cho, Cowey and Watanabe, 1985; Choubert, De la Noüe and Luquet, 1982; Jobling, 1983; NRC, 1983; Tacon and Rodrigues, 1984; Talbot, 1985; Wilson and Poe, 1985; Smith, Peterson and Allred, 1980; Kirchgessner, Kürzinger and Schwarz, 1986; De la Noüe and Choubert, 1986; Vens-Cappell, 1985; Atkinson, Hilton and Slinger, 1984; Buddington, 1980). In view of the above factors it is clear that each ingredient (from what ever source) must be considered as being unique and evaluated (in terms of nutrient digestibility) on its own merits. In view of the difficulties encountered with the quantitative collection of faeces within an aquatic environment and the different methods employed by individual nutrition laboratories for estimating nutrient digestibility, further research is required in this subject area before confidence can be given to the digestibility coefficients obtained.
Ingredient handling/processing requirement prior to mixing or pelleting: including service (ie. electricity, water, fuel) and equipment (grinder, mincer, vibrating sieve, freezer) cost. For example, the high energy and equipment cost of fine grinding ingredients on site prior to use within fry or larval diet formulations may be reduced in-part by selecting pre-ground feed ingredient sources. Similarly, the relatively high cost of storing whole trash fish on site by freezing may be overcome by the use of less expensive acid silage techniques (Jackson, Kerr and Cowey, 1984).
Maximum/minimum dietary feed ingredient constraints: in terms of available nutrient level, possible dietary interactions with other ingredient sources (antagonisms), known endogenous anti-nutritional factors, milling and pelleting constraints, and dietary tolerance to the fish or shrimp species in question. For example, Table 3 shows the formulation constraints imposed by Robinette (1984) and Crampton (1985) for a practical pelleted diet for channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and a salmonid, respectively. However, it must be stated that it is up to the user (ie. the person formulating the diet) to set his or her own dietary nutrient and ingredient constraints. There are no hard and fast rules or ‘magic formula’; the nutritional quality and cost of individual ingredient sources varying considerably from one factory or region to another, and fish and shrimp species differing in their dietary tolerance to individual feed ingredient sources (Crampton, 1985; Cho, Cowey and Watanabe, 1985). For the most part dietary nutrient and ingredient constraints are set either through practical trial and error, or through the ‘experience’ or ‘slimy’ fingers of the aquaculture feed technologist; the formulation of complete aquaculture diets still being an art rather than a science. Despite this, some dietary constraints are concessions to milling/pelleting considerations, and consequently are well understood. For example, the use of at least 20% digestible carbohydrate within expanded pelleted feeds (ie. such as corn; expansion pelleting requiring the presence of adequate amounts of starch for sufficient gelatinization, Table 3), the restriction of total dietary lipid during pelleting to 8% (ie. lipid levels above this reducing the binding quality of the pelleted feed; additional lipid may be added if required after the pellet has been formed by spraying on to the outside of the freshly pelleted feed), or the use of dietary binding agents to maintain pellet quality and reduce the dust content of the final pelleted feed (Robinson and Wilson, 1985; Cho, Cowey and Watanabe, 1985). For a review of the nutritive value of individual feed ingredients for fish and shrimp see Deshimaru (1981), Kanazawa (1983), New (1987), Spinelli (1980), Tacon and Jackson (1985), and Tacon (1987a).
Performance of the formulated feed: in terms of handling characteristics (pellet quality and durability), cost, effect on water quality (pollution effect), effect on fish or shrimp carcass quality (ie. pigmentation, lipid content, taste), and effect on fish or shrimp growth and survival (ie. food conversion efficiency, growth rate, and food to fish/shrimp cost).
Table 3. Formulation constraints imposed for a 32% crude protein extrusion processed (expanded) pelleted feed for channel catfish and a 45% crude protein conventional steam pelleted feed for a salmonid (rainbow trout) 1
Nutrient/ingredient | Dietary constraint | |
Minimum (%) | Maximum (%) | |
Channel catfish pellet 2 | ||
Crude protein | 32 | - |
Lipid | - | 6 |
Crude fibre | - | 7 |
Calcium | - | 1.5 |
Phosphorus (available) | 0.5 | 0.7 |
Digestible energy (kcal/kg) | 2618 | - |
Lysine | 1.63 | - |
Methionine | 0.30 | - |
Methionine + cystine | 0.74 | - |
Yellow corn | 25 | - |
Wheat | 2 | - |
Cottonseed meal 3 | - | 10 |
Menhaden fish meal | 8 | - |
Vitamin premix | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Mineral premix | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Salmonid pellet 4 | ||
Crude protein | 45 | 100 |
Lipid | 15 | 100 |
Carbohydrate | 5 | 20 |
Crude fibre | 0 | 100 |
Ash | 5 | 18 |
Methionine | 0.75 | 100 |
Methionine + cystine | 1.75 | 100 |
Lysine | 2.3 | 100 |
Available lysine | 2 | 100 |
Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) | 3000 | 100 |
Fish meal content | 45 | 100 |
Fish meal, Scottish | 15 | 100 |
Fish meal, Danish | 15 | 100 |
Fish meal, spray dried | 0 | 15 |
Blood meal, spray dried | 0 | 5 |
Soybean meal, extracted | 0 | 15 |
Meat and bone meal | 0 | 10 |
Fish oil | 2 | 13 |
Wheat | 0 | 20 |
Poultry by-product meal | 0 | 5 |
Distillers by-product meal | 0 | 5 |
Vitamin mix | 1 | 1 |
Mineral mix | 1 | 1 |
Pellet binder | 0.1 | 0.1 |
1 Least-cost formulation constraints imposed by linear programming
2 Data from Robinette (1984)
3 Amount used depends on level of free-gossypol in the meal
4 Data from Crampton (1985)
The object of feed formulation is to mix ingredients of differing nutritional quality so as to obtain a balanced diet whose biologically available nutrient profile approximates to the dietary needs of the animal in question. However, the formulation of a practical diet is largely a compromise between what would be ideal from a nutritional viewpoint (ie. such as the production of a diet in which the protein component is entirely supplied by a high quality fish meal), and what is practical and economical. Ideally the formulation ought to reflect the nutrient requirements of the animal exactly without surpluses (but allowing for manufacturing losses), but in practice the nutrient requirements are not known with certainty and the biological availability of nutrients in feed ingredients is very often unknown. In industry there is a further object, namely, to derive a balanced diet at least cost. This is the diet that is the least expensive of the possible dietary formulae which satisfy the criteria and will meet the standards at least cost to the farmer.
In aquaculture feeding the number of possible ingredient sources and the number of nutrients in each for which requirements have been estimated are extensive. It follows therefore that a large number of arithmetric calculations are required to produce a least-cost diet. Although ‘hand’ formulations using a simple calculator may be sufficient (if not a little tedious and time consuming) for the scientist or farmer wishing to formulate a feed for use within his or her own laboratory or farm, this is not the case for the commercial feed manufacturer where time is money and profits are made or lost in the area of ingredient buying, negotiating contracts and raw material handling; feed ingredient costs currently representing about 80% of the finished feed price. To meet this demand the animal feed manufacturing industry has been employing the computer technique of linear programming since the mid-nineteen fifties. Linear programming is essentially a mathematical tool by which resources are evaluated or selected to achieve an optimal solution to a problem. The value of linear programming is in the number of ingredients and number of requirements or restrictions which can be handled in a short period of time.
Certain data must be supplied to the computer together with the programme to be executed. These data are:
the detailed feeding standard which has to be satisfied (ie. dietary nutrient requirements), together with any permitted deviations in each nutrient;
the detailed nutrient composition of each potential ingredient;
any restriction on the proportion of the final mix that any one ingredient may represent, this can be a maximal or minimal value and in computer jargon is known as a constraint;
the cost per unit weight of each ingredient.
The formula calculated by the computer will be that meeting the specification at the least cost of ingredients, hence any extra mixing or handling charge due to the inclusion of a certain ingredient must be added to the cost per unit weight of that ingredient or else added to the cost of the formula.
When using a computer it must be borne in mind that the adequacy of a diet compounded to the resultant formula will be affected by two main factors: the extent to which the feeding standards (ie. nutrient requirements) adopted adequately represent the biological needs of the fish or shrimp and the accuracy with which the amounts of nutrients in the ingredients available to the fish or shrimp are known.
Readers requiring detailed information on ‘hand’ or ‘linear programming’ formulation techniques should consult the reviews of Cho, Cowey and Watanabe (1985) and New (1987), and Barbieri and Cuzon (1980), Cho, Rumsey and Waldroup (1980), Crampton (1985), Thong (1985) and Poornan (1987), respectively. The basic procedure for formulating a complete diet has been described by Cho, Cowey and Watanabe (1985) and is summarized in Figure 1.
ESSENTIAL NUTRIENTS REQUIRED (Proteins, amino acids, fatty acids, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, energy, energy/protein balance) |
↓ |
SELECTION OF INGREDIENTS (Composition, digestibility, quality control, and cost) |
↓ |
BASAL FEED FORMULATION (Fixed part of the feed - ie. level of fish meal, fish oil etc.) |
↓ |
FIXED SUPPLEMENTS (Vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, mould inhibitors etc.) |
↓ |
BINDER OR FILLER |
↓ |
FINAL FORMULATION/CALCULATION OF ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT LEVELS |
↓ |
Figure 1. Procedure for diet formulation (based after Cho, Cowey and Watanabe, 1985) |
Prior to presenting examples of published diet formulations, it is perhaps useful to first provide a general indication of the individual feed ingredient levels commonly employed within practical complete aquaculture feeds. Table 4 therefore summarises the observed dietary inclusion levels (range and mean) of the major feed ingredients used within practical complete pelleted rations for fish and shrimp from published information, and also provides suggestions for their maximum dietary usage. The recommended maximum dietary inclusion levels presented are conservative estimates and should be used as the upper dietary limits for the early growth phase (ie. larval or fingerling stage) of the cultured fish or shrimp species.
Table 5 presents examples of complete diet formulations which have been tested and proven under practical rearing conditions (ie. working diet formulations as opposed to un-tested or hypothetical diet formulations). However, it should be stated that each of the individual practical diet formulations presented must be considered as being unique and as such should not be copied or applied on face value by persons wishing to formulate their own rations; the nutrient content, physical characteristics (ie. particle size), digestibility, and cost of individual feed ingredients varying considerably from one factory or country to another (depending on the manufacturing process employed and the quality of the raw material used).
Table 4. Observed dietary inclusion levels (%) of the major feed ingredients within practical complete pelleted fish and shrimp diets, and suggestions for their maximum dietary inclusion level (Max. level) 1
Feed ingredient | Carnivorous fish | Omniv/Herb. fish | Carnivorous shrimp | Omniv/Herb. shrimp2 | ||||||||
Observed | Max. level | Observed | Max. level | Observed | Max. level | Observed | Max. level | |||||
Range | X | Range | X | Range | X | Range | X | |||||
Alfalfa meal | 1–5 | 3 | 5 | 3–5 | 4 | 10 | - | - | 5 | 4–4 | 4 | 10 |
Blood meal (spray dried) 3 | 2–10 | 7.5 | 10 | 1–6 | 3 | 10 | 2–11 | 6 | 10 | 2–11 | 6 | 10 |
Cassava/Tapioca meal | - | - | 15 | - | - | 35 | 5–10 | 8 | 15 | 5–15 | 10 | 25 |
Coconut oilcake/oilmeal | - | - | 15 | - | - | 25 | 5–10 | 7 | 15 | 5–50 | 21 | 25 |
Corn grain, meal | 2–15 | 8 | 20 | 10–33 | 26 | 35 | 5–15 | 10 | 15 | 8–57 | 30 | 35 |
Corn gluten meal | 4–20 | 10 | 15 | 4–10 | 8 | 20 | 5–7 | 6 | 15 | 5–8 | 6 | 20 |
Cottonseed meal, solv ext. 4 | 10–34 | 10 | 15 | 10–35 | 15 | 20 | - | - | 10 | - | - | 15 |
Corn distillers dried solubles | 3–8 | 7 | 10 | 5–8 | 6 | 15 | 5–6 | 6 | 10 | - | - | 15 |
Dicalcium phosphate | 1–2 | 1.5 | 3 | 0.5–3 | 1 | 3 | 1–3 | 1.5 | 3 | 1–3 | 1.5 | 3 |
Hydrolyzed feather meal 5 | 3–7 | 5.5 | 10 | 2–6 | 5 | 10 | - | - | 10 | - | - | 10 |
Fish meal | 5–65 | 36 | No limit | 5–60 | 20 | No limit | 15–25 | 20 | 35 | 7–30 | 16 | 35 |
Fish protein concentrate | 5–10 | 8 | 15 | 2–8 | 3 | 10 | 1–15 | 5 | 15 | 2–15 | 4 | 15 |
Groundnut meal, solv. extr. 6 | 5–20 | 10 | 15 | 11–25 | 20 | 25 | 5–17 | 7 | 15 | 2–26 | 13 | 25 |
Liver meal | 5–65 | 25 | 50 | 5–45 | 20 | 50 | - | - | 25 | - | - | 20 |
Meat & Bone meal, solv ext. 7 | 5–30 | 10 | 20 | 5–25 | 10 | 25 | 5–10 | 7 | 15 | 5–12 | 9 | 20 |
Poultry by-product meal 8 | 4–7 | 5 | 15 | 4–15 | 7 | 20 | - | - | 15 | - | - | 20 |
Rapeseed meal, solv. extr. 9 | 10–30 | 15 | 20 | 10–45 | 20 | 25 | - | - | 15 | - | - | 20 |
Rice bran, solv. extr. | 5–15 | 10 | 15 | 3–65 | 15 | 35 | 10–15 | 12 | 15 | 10–50 | 26 | 35 |
Shrimp meal | 5–30 | 10 | 25 | 5–10 | 7 | 25 | 11–45 | 23 | No limit | 10–51 | 20 | No limit |
Squid meal | - | - | No limit | - | - | No limit | 10–47 | 25 | No limit | 5–20 | 11 | No limit |
Sorghum grain, meal 10 | - | - | 20 | 10–57 | 18 | 35 | - | - | 15 | - | - | 35 |
Soybean meal, solv. extr. | 6–30 | 16 | 25 | 4–50 | 25 | 35 | 8–25 | 10 | 20 | 3–40 | 15 | 30 |
Soybean, full fat | 10–73 | 42 | 35 | 10–50 | 35 | 40 | - | - | 20 | - | - | 30 |
Wheat grain, meal | 4–33 | 15 | 20 | 4–25 | 15 | 35 | 5–20 | 10 | 20 | 8–42 | 18 | 35 |
Wheat bran | 2–25 | 10 | 15 | 10–40 | 25 | 30 | 5–10 | 7 | 15 | 5–15 | 10 | 30 |
Wheat gluten meal | 5–10 | 7 | 15 | 2–10 | 5 | 15 | 3–15 | 11 | 20 | 4–14 | 8 | 20 |
Wheat middlings | 2–38 | 16 | 25 | 2–38 | 17 | 40 | - | - | 20 | - | - | 35 |
Whey, dried (delactose) | 2–10 | 7 | 10 | 2–8 | 6 | 10 | - | - | 10 | - | - | 10 |
Yeast, dried brewers | 2–19 | 5 | 15 | 5–30 | 8 | 15 | 4–14 | 8 | 15 | 5–16 | 10 | 15 |
2 Includes the freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii.
4 Degossypolized meal should be used.
10 Low tannin variety should be used.
Table 5. Examples of complete diet formulations which have been tested and proven under practical intensive rearing conditions
PRACTICAL COMPLETE DIETS - CARNIVOROUS FISH
1. Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) - Dry diet, crumbled/pelleted
Ingredient (%) | Starter(S) | Grower(G) | Brood(B) |
Fish meal, herring/caplin (68% protein, 13% ash) | 46 | 27 | 35 |
Feather meal, hydrolyzed (80% protein, 4% ash) | 8 | 8 | 8 |
Soybean meal, solvent extracted, dehulled (48% protein) | 9 | 10 | 9 |
Corn gluten meal (60% protein) | 8 | 10 | 7 |
Brewers dried yeast (45% protein, 7% ash) | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Alfalfa meal (17% protein, 24% fibre) | - | - | 6 |
Whey, spray dried (12% protein, 10% ash) | 8.5 | 6 | 7 |
Wheat middlings (17% protein, 8% fibre) | - | 20 | 14 |
Vitamin premix (VIT-8204) 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 2 |
Mineral premix (MIN-8204) 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Fish oil with antioxidant | 3 | 3 | 2 |
Fish oil with antioxidant sprayed on pellets/granules | 10 | 9 | 4 |
Calculated crude protein (CP) content, % | 50.1 | 41.9 | 45.2 |
Source: Cho, Cowey and Watanabe (1985)
2. Rainbow trout (S. gairdneri) - Dry diet, crumbled/pelleted
Ingredient (%) | Starter (SD9) | Grower (GR3) | Production(PR9) |
Fish meal, herring | 50 | 35 | 35 |
Soybean meal, solvent extracted | 15 | 30 | 20 |
Blood meal, ring dried | 10 | 10 | - |
Brewers dried yeast | - | - | 5 |
Condensed fermented corn extractives | - | - | 8 |
Whey product, dried | - | - | 10 |
Alfalfa meal, dehydrated | - | - | 3 |
Wheat middlings, feed flour | 10.3 | 15.2 | 12.5 |
Fish oil, herring | 12 | 7 | 5 |
Vitamin premix 1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
Mineral premix 2 | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.05 |
Sodium phosphate - monobasic | - | - | 1 |
Choline chloride, 50% | 0.225 | 0.176 | - |
Choline chloride, 100% | - | - | 0.088 |
Ascorbic acid | 0.075 | 0.075 | 0.066 |
Pellet binder, lignosulphonate | 2 | 2 | - |
Nutrient content, % | |||
Moisture | 8.9 | 4.4 | 8.1 |
Crude protein | 50.6 | 48.5 | 43.3 |
Lipid | 15.9 | 10.8 | 9.4 |
Crude fibre | NA | NA | 4.0 |
Ash | 10.3 | 7.7 | 7.9 |
1 Vitamin premix; mg vitamin/kg finished feed: D calcium pantothenate 105.8mg, pyridoxine 30.9mg, riboflavin52.9mg, niacinamide 220.5mg, folacin 8.8mg, thiamine mononitrate 35.3mg, biotin 0.35mg, vitamin B12 0.02mg,menadione sodium bisulphite complex 11mg, vitamin E 353 IU, vitamin D3 441 IU, vitamin A (palmitate) 6615 IU
2 Mineral premix; % composition of mineral premix : ZnSO4.H2O 41.95%, MnSO4.H2O 47.02%, FeSO4.7H2O 10.06%,KIO3 0.18%, CuSO4 0.79%
NA - Data not available
Source: Reinitz (1980) - SD9 and GR3; Reinitz and Hitzel (1980) - PR9
3. Rainbow trout (S. gairdneri) / Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) - Moist diet, pelleted
Ingredient (%) | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Raw/frozen fish (Argentina silus) | 60 | 33.6 | 30 |
Casein, acid preserved silage 1 | - | 18.6 | - |
Cattle blood, acid preserved silage 2 | - | - | 32.6 |
Capelin oil | - | 2.9 | 2.6 |
Binder meal 3 | 40 | 44.9 | 40 |
Nutrient content, % | |||
Moisture | 47.4 | 41.2 | 47.9 |
Crude protein, % dry matter basis | 49.4 | 49.6 | 49.8 |
Lipid, % dry matter basis | 14.7 | 14.6 | 14.7 |
Ash, % dry matter basis | 7.7 | 7.5 | 7.1 |
1 Fresh casein preserved with 2% w/w formic acid or 2% w/w concentrated sulphuricacid + 0.5% formic acid w/w
2 Fresh cattle blood preserved with 1 – 1.3% w/w formic acid (87%)
3 Binder meal composition (%): fish meal 48%, raw wheat 24%, cooked wheat 24%, and 4% premix containing binder,vitamins, minerals and canthaxanthin. Supplied/kg binder meal: vitamin A 5000 IU, vitamin D3 1000 IU, vitaminK3 20mg, DL-alpha-tocopherol acetate 120 mg, thiamine 20 mg, riboflavin 50 mg, pyridoxine 30 mg, calciumpantothenate 80 mg, niacin 300 mg, folic acid 10 mg, biotin 400 mg* (value reported for biotin seams to beexceptionally high; should be about 0.4 mg), choline chloride 1200 mg, inositol 200 mg, ascorbic acid 400 mg,FeSO4 80 mg, MnO 80 mg, ZnO 100 mg, CuO 16 mg, CaI2 3 mg, Na2SeO3 0.2 mg, canthaxanthin 70 mg
Source: Asgard and Austreng (1985) - Diet 1 and 2; Asgard and Austreng (1986) - Diet 1 and 3
4. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) - Dry diet, crumbled/pelleted
Ingredient (%) | Abernathy Dry Diet | Modified Abernathy Diet | |||
≤0.79mm granules | 1.2–2.4mm granules | All sizes pellets | WV-C | C-1 | |
Candle rapeseed meal, 38.1% protein | - | - | - | - | 12.97 |
Herring meal, 69.7% protein | 46 | - | - | 48.9 | 48.9 |
Fish meal, herring or anchovy | - | 37 | 34 | - | - |
Dried whey product, 13.9% protein | 7.5 | 10 | 10 | 2.37 | 2.37 |
Cottonseed meal, 53.5% protein | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9.23 | - |
Blood flour, 91.5% protein | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4.95 | 4.95 |
Shrimp meal, 41.7% protein | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4.96 | 4.96 |
Wheat germ meal, 29.0% protein | 5 | - | - | 4.35 | 4.35 |
Wheat middlings, 17.7% protein | 2.275 | 7.825 | 10.825 | 9.56 | 6.07 |
Dried brewers yeast, min. 35% protein | 5 | 5 | 5 | - | - |
Brewers dried grains, min. 25% protein | - | 10 | 10 | - | - |
Vitamin premix 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - | - |
Vitamin + mineral premix 2 | - | - | - | 5.32 | 5.32 |
Trace mineral supplement 3 | - | 2 | 2 | - | - |
Choline chloride, 50% | 2.25 | 1.75 | 1.75 | - | - |
Soybean oil 4 | 10 | - | - | - | - |
Fish oil, soy oil or lecithin 5 | - | 4 | 4 | - | - |
Salmon oil 6 | - | - | - | 6.32 | 6.28 |
Soy lecithin | - | - | - | 1 | 1 |
Limestone, ground | - | - | - | 0.5 | 0.36 |
DL-methionine | - | - | - | 0.43 | 0.36 |
Permapell | - | - | - | 2.13 | 2.13 |
Nutrient content, % dry matter | |||||
Crude protein | 50 | 46.8 | 46.8 | 49.3 | NA |
Lipid | 14.7 | 10.6 | 10.6 | 16.3 | NA |
Crude fibre | 3.17 | 4.88 | 4.88 | 3.63 | NA |
Ash | 10.1 | 11.7 | 11.7 | 11.7 | NA |
Moisture (as fed) | 7.88 | 6.00 | 6.00 | 10.0 | NA |
4 Soy oil, once refined, 0.01% BHA or BHT added.
6 Salmon oil, stabilized with 0.33% BHA-BHT (1:1)
Source: Higgs et. al., (1982)
5. Salmon (Oncorhynchus sp) - Moist diet, crumbled/pelleted
Ingredient (%) | Oregon Moist Diet | Modified Oregon moist diet | ||
Starter | Pellet | |||
OMP(72) | OMP(75) | |||
Fish meal, herring, min. 70% protein | 46 | 28 | 28–30 | 34 |
Cottonseed meal, min. 50% protein | - | 15 | 17 | 14.2 |
Dried whey, low lactose | 10 | 5 | 5 | - |
Shrimp or crab meal, min. 30% protein | - | 4 | 4 | 2 |
Wheat germ meal, min. 25% protein | 10 | 4 | 4 | 5.25 |
Corn distillers solubles, dehydrated | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
Oat groats, whole, freshly ground | - | - | - | 5 |
Herring oil | - | - | 6 | 6.3 |
Soybean oil | 10 | 6 | - | - |
Wet fish 1 | 16 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
Kelp meal | 2 | 2 | 2 | - |
Vitamin premix 2 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | - |
Vitamin premix 3 | - | - | - | 1.7 |
Potassium sorbate | - | - | - | 0.8 |
Antioxidant 4 | - | - | - | 0.05 |
Choline chloride, 70% | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Nutrient content, % | ||||
Moisture | NA | 205 | 205 | 25.88 |
Crude protein | NA | 42 | 42 | 42.37 |
Lipid | NA | 14 | 14 | 13.30 |
Crude fibre | NA | 3 | 3 | NA |
Ash | NA | 9 | 9 | 7.32 |
4 BHA 20%, BHT 20%, herring oil 60%.
5 Dry matter composition given as 50–52% crude protein and 15–18% lipid
Source: Orme (1978) and Ketola (1978) - Oregon moist pellet; Crawford et. al., (1973) - Modified Oregon pellet
6. Dover sole (Solea vulgaris) - Expanded rehydratable crumble
Ingredient (%) | Without attractant | With attractant |
Rehydratable expanded basal diet 1 | 84.6 | 84.6 |
Vitamin mixture, 2, 3 | 4.1 | 4.1 |
Oil mixture 4 | 11.3 | 11.3 |
Total | 100 | 100 |
Chemical attractive substances 5 | - | 7.4 |
Water 6 | 15–20 | 15–20 |
4 Oil mixture contains corn oil 51.3%, cod liver oil 31% and soy lecithin 17.7%
Source: Metailler, Cadena-Roa and Person-Le Ruyet (1983).
7. Marine fish (general)
Ingredient (%) 1 | Starter C505 | Grower GRT-80S |
Fish meal, herring/capelin, 65–68% protein | 50 | 40 |
Soybean meal, 48% protein | - | 10 |
Blood meal, 80% protein | 10 | - |
Skim or butter milk, dried | 8 | - |
Dried brewers yeast, 45% protein | 7 | 5 |
Feathermeal, hydrolyzed, 80% protein | - | 5 |
Poultry by-product meal, 60% protein | - | 5 |
Whey dried | - | 8 |
Corn gluten meal, 60% protein | - | 7 |
Wheat gluten meal, 80% protein | - | 7 |
Maize or cassava meal 2 | 10 | - |
Fish oil, marine 3 | - | 3 |
Vitamin premix - VIT8004 4 | 2 | 2 |
Fish oil, marine (sprayed on outside of pellet) 3, 5 | 9 | 8 |
Liver, beef (fresh) 6 | 14 | - |
1 All ingredients must be ground finer than 0.354mm and not flame dried
2 Alginates, gelatin or other binder agents may replace 3–5% maize or cassava meal
3 Fish oil should be stabilized with 500ppm antioxidant
5 Fish oil sprayed on the granules or pellets as a fine mist (after pelleting)
6 10% water from fresh liver to be evaporated after pelleting
Source: Cho (1980)
PRACTICAL COMPLETE DIETS - OMNIVOROUS FISH
8. Tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) - Dry diet, pelleted
Ingredient (%) | Grower/production | diets |
Fish meal | 35 | 30 |
Meat and bone meal | 5 | 5 |
Soybean meal, solvent extracted | 26 | 20 |
Cottonseed meal, solvent extracted | 5 | 5 |
Wheat bran | 12 | 17 |
Yellow maize, ground | 10 | 16 |
Cane molasses | 2 | 2 |
Soybean oil | 3 | 3 |
Vitamin premix 1 | 1 | 1 |
Mineral premix 2 | 1 | 1 |
Nutrient content, % dry matter | ||
Crude protein | 34.8 | 30.9 |
Lipid | 6.2 | 6.4 |
Crude fibre | 5.8 | 5.9 |
Ash | 13.2 | 12.1 |
Source: Merola and Cantelmo (1987)
9. Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus/O. aureus) - dry diet, pellet
Ingredient (%) | Fry/fingerling diets | Grower/production diets | ||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Dried fish (Kapenta) | 30 | 10 | 25 | - |
Fish meal (Tuna waste) | - | - | - | 9 |
Full fat soya | 30 | 20 | 20 | - |
Cottonseed cake | - | - | - | 20 |
Groundnut cake | - | - | - | 11 |
Copra cake | - | - | - | 17 |
Sunflower oilcake | 20 | 20 | 20 | - |
Wheat middlings | 20(19) | 20 | 20 | 38 |
Blood meal | - | 15 | - | - |
Vitamin premix 1 | (1) | (1) | (1) | *2 |
Oyster shell | - | - | - | 2 |
Bagasse/molasses | - | 15(14) | 15(14) | - |
Fish oil | - | - | - | 3 |
Nutrient content, % | ||||
Moisture | 8.6 | 8.5 | 8.0 | 8.8 |
Crude protein | 42.8 | 39.5 | 33.3 | 28.0 |
Lipid | 5.0 | 6.0 | NA | 6.5 |
Crude fibre | 6.5 | 9.6 | NA | 12.8 |
Ash | 5.7 | 6.4 | 10.5 | 9.3 |
Source: Dickson (1987) - Diets 1, 2 & 3; Campbell (1985) - Diet 4
10. African catfish (Clarias lazera/gariepinus) - dry/moist diet, granule/pellet
Ingredient (%) | Dry diet | Moist diet | ||||
Larvae | Fing./Brood | Grower | Grower | |||
Brewers yeast, wet, 15% dry matter, 52% protein | - | - | - | - | - | 30 |
Dried Torula yeast (Candida utilis) | 69.8 | - | - | - | - | - |
Fish meal, brown | 23.3 | - | - | - | - | - |
Brewers grains, wet, 25% dry matter | - | - | - | - | 78 | 44 |
Brewers grains, dried, 20% protein, 5% lipid | - | - | 15 | 10 | - | - |
Rice bran, 9% protein, 6% lipid | - | 8 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
Maize, 13% protein, 4% lipid | - | 4 | 5.55 | 6.05 | - | - |
Cottonseed cake, 41% protein, 14% lipid | - | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
Groundnut cake, 48% protein, 9% lipid | - | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
Sesame oilcake, 43% protein, 9% lipid | - | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Blood meal, 68% protein, 0.4% lipid | - | 20 | - | 5 | - | 5 |
Bone meal | - | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Vitamin premix 1 | 0.9 | - | - | - | - | - |
Vitamin and mineral premix 2 | - | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
Salt | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Palm oil | - | 5 | 1 | 1 | - | - |
Fish oil:soybean oil mixture (1:1) 3 | 6 | - | - | - | - | - |
L-lysine | - | - | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.5 | - |
DL-methionine | - | - | 0.2 | - | 0.2 | - |
Methionine supplement 4 | 6 | - | - | - | - | - |
Gentian violet (fungicide), g/100kg | - | 5 | - | - | 5 | 5 |
Furanace (bactericide and fungicide), mg/kg | 4 | - | - | - | - | - |
Endox (antioxidant), mg/kg | 250 | - | - | - | - | - |
Nutrient content, % dry matter | ||||||
Crude protein | 55.4 | 47.0 | 35.3 | 38.2 | 35.9 | 39.2 |
Lipid | 9.1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Ash | 13.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
3 Fish oil:soybean oil mixture added as 6% of total dry weight of feed (after formulation)
4 Methionine supplement to contain 150mg/kg pure methionine
Source: Uys and Hecht (1985) - Larval diet; Janssen (1985) - Fingerling/Brood/Grower diets
11. Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) - dry diet, crumble/pellet
Ingredient (%) | Starter diets | Fingerling diets | Grower diets | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
Fish meal, menhaden | 84.5 | 45.9 | 27.8 | 10 | 12 | 8 | - |
Poultry by-product meal | - | 38 | - | - | - | - | - |
Meat and bone meal | - | - | - | - | - | - | 15 |
Rice bran or wheat shorts | - | - | - | - | - | 10 | - |
Soybean meal | - | - | 15.5 | 37 | 25 | 48.25 | 47.5 |
Brewers yeast, dried | - | 10 | 30.8 | - | - | - | - |
Wheat grain, ground | 13 | 15.5 | 4.1 | - | 4 | - | - |
Cottonseed meal | - | - | 24.8 | - | - | - | - |
Corn grain, ground | - | - | - | 23.5 | 33.2 | 29.1 | 33 |
Groundnut meal | - | - | - | 18 | 25 | - | - |
Distillers dried solubles | - | - | - | 7.5 | - | - | - |
Wheat middlings | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1.75 |
Whey, dried | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2.4 |
Tallow | 3.1 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - |
Fish oil, menhaden | - | - | 3 | - | - | - | - |
Micronutrient premix 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | - | - | - | - |
Dicalcium phosphate | - | - | - | 1.5 | 0.7 | 1 | 0.25 |
Vitamin premix 2 | - | - | - | - | 0.05 | - | - |
Vitamin premix 3 | - | - | - | 0.05 | - | 0.05 | 0.05 |
Lignosulphonate (binder) | - | - | - | 2.5 | - | 2 | - |
Binder (Na CMC) | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2 | - | - | - | - |
Trace mineral premix 4 | - | - | - | - | 0.05 | - | - |
Propionic acid (fungicide) | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | - | - | - | - |
Trace mineral premix 5 | - | - | - | 0.075 | - | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Coated ascorbic acid (98%) 6 | - | - | - | 0.05 | - | 0.0375 | 0.0375 |
Fat (sprayed on finished feed) | - | - | - | - | - | 1.5 | - |
Nutrient content, % dry matter | |||||||
Crude protein | 58.5 | 55.5 | 44.3 | 36 | 35 | 32 | 32 |
Lipid | 11.5 | 10.6 | 6.4 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
1 Vitamin and mineral premix formulated to meet or exceed NRC (1977) recommendations
Source: Winfree and Stickney (1984) - Diets 1, 2 and 3; Robinette (1984) - Diets 4, 6 & 7 Mgbenka and Lovell (1984) - Diet 5; Diets 5, 6 and 7 are formulations for expanded diets.
12. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) - dry diet, pellet
Ingredient (%) | Grower/production diets | |
1 | 2 1 | |
Fish meal, menhaden, 61% protein, 9% lipid | 25 | 15 |
Soybean meal, toasted, 44% protein | - | 17 |
Wheat, ground | 10 | 10 |
Sorghum, ground | 62.5 | 56.85 |
DL-methionine | - | 0.15 |
Vitamin/mineral premix 2 | 2.5 | 1 |
Nutrient content, % | ||
Moisture | 13 | 13 |
Crude protein | 24 | 24.5 |
Lipid | 4.9 | 3.7 |
Source: Viola et. al., (1982)
PRACTICAL COMPLETE DIETS - CARNIVOROUS/OMNIVOROUS SHRIMP AND PRAWNS
13. Kuruma shrimp (Penaeus japonicus) - dry diet, pellet
Ingredient (%) | Post larvae/juveniles | ||
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Fish meal | - | 20 | 15 |
Fish solubles | - | - | 5 |
Fish protein concentrate | - | 1 | - |
Shrimp meal | - | 11 | 30 |
Mysid shrimp meal | 15 | - | - |
Squid meal | 47 | - | - |
Petroleum yeast | 20 | - | - |
Lactic acid yeast, dried 1 | - | 11 | - |
Brewers yeast, dried | - | 4 | 4 |
Meat meal | - | 5 | - |
Algae meal (Spirulina) | - | - | 8 |
Soybean meal | - | 10 | 8 |
Corn yeast extract (Mazoferm) | - | 4 | - |
Fish autolytic paste (PNF) | - | 4 | - |
Fish oil | - | 4 | 4 |
Corn steep (Roquette) | - | 6 | - |
Distillers dried solubles (Solufactor) | - | - | 6 |
Wheat gluten | 3 | 15 | 15 |
Active sludge | 5 | - | - |
Alpha-starch | 2 | - | - |
Soya lecithin | - | 1 | - |
Vitamin premix 2 | 3 | - | - |
Protector vitamin premix 3 | - | 2.5 | 2 |
Mineral premix 4 | 5 | - | - |
CaHPO4: CaCO3 (1:1) | - | - | 3 |
CaHPO4 | - | 1.9 | - |
Antioxidant (BHT) | - | 0.01 | - |
Nutrient content, % | |||
Moisture | 6.8 | 6 | 10 |
Crude protein | 61.4 | 58 | 52 |
Lipid | 4.9 | 10 | 8 |
Ash | 4.9 | 14 | 14 |
4 KHPO4 10%, Ca3(PO4)2 15%, Ca-lactate 75%
Source: Deshimaru and Shigeno (1972) - Diet 1; Cuzon et. al., (1981) - Diet 2; Cuzon et. al., (1982) - Diet 3
14. Giant tiger shrimp (P. monodon) - dry diet, pellet
Ingredient (%) | Post larvae/juveniles | |||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Fish meal | 30 | 30 | 27.5 | 29.3 |
Shrimp meal | - | - | 27.5 | 17.4 |
Shrimp meal | 15 | 15 | - | - |
Soybean meal | 15 | - | - | - |
Copra meal | - | - | - | 10 |
Ipil-ipil leaf meal (dried soaked leaves) | - | 20 | - | - |
Wheat/bread flour | 10 | 10 | 15 | 15 |
Sago palm starch/corn starch | - | - | 5 | 5 |
Rice hulls (filler) | - | - | - | 5.9 |
Rice bran | 14.8 | 9.8 | 20 | 10 |
Potato starch | 5 | 5 | - | - |
Cod liver oil | 9 | 9 | - | - |
Corn oil | - | - | 4 | 2.6 |
Vitamin/mineral premix V-22 1 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | - |
Vitamin premix 2 | - | - | - | 1 |
Mineral premix 3 | - | - | - | 1 |
Dicalcium phosphate | - | - | - | 2.8 |
Vitamin C | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | - |
Antioxidant (BHT) | 0.2 | 0.2 | - | - |
Nutrient content, % dry matter | ||||
Crude protein | 41.9 | 40.7 | 35.7 | NA |
Lipid | 14.1 | 15.9 | 7.4 | NA |
Crude fibre | 3.4 | 4.9 | 8.0 | NA |
Ash | 10.6 | 10.6 | 16.9 | NA |
Source: Vogt, Quinitio and Pascual (1986) - Diet 1 and 2; Pascual (1983) - Diet 3; Lim and Destajo (1979) - 4
15. Giant tiger shrimp (P. monodon) - dry diet, pellets
Ingredient (%) | Post larvae/juveniles/production | |||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Meat meal | - | - | - | 21.5 |
Fish meal | 7 | 10 | 27 | - |
Soluble fish protein concentrate | 5 | 5 | - | 6 |
Shrimp meal | 12 | 15 | - | 8 |
Meat and bone meal | 7 | 7 | 10 | - |
Soybean meal | - | - | 15 | - |
Soybean cake | 24 | 20 | - | - |
Sesame cake meal (expeller) | - | - | 5 | - |
Groundnut meal (expeller) | - | - | 5 | 17 |
Copra cake | 5 | - | 10 | - |
Leaf meal | - | - | 5 | - |
Rice bran (solvent extracted) | - | - | 10 | - |
Maize | - | - | 4 | - |
Rice | - | - | - | 6 |
Wheat gluten | 7 | 7 | - | 10 |
Tapioca | - | - | 8 3 | - |
Blood meal | 3 | 2 | - | 11 |
Alkane yeast | 10 | - | - | - |
Brewers yeast | - | 10 | - | - |
Cod liver oil | 6 | - | - | 4 |
Fish oil | - | 6 | - | - |
Cereals (wheat, corn, rice) | - | 10 | - | - |
Spirulina | 2 | - | - | - |
Peptonal | 5 | - | - | - |
Snail meal (Trocus or Achatina) | 2 | 2 | - | - |
Vitamins and salt 1 | 5 | 6 | - | 8 |
Vitamin and mineral premix 2 | - | - | 1 | - |
Antioxidant (BHT) | - | - | 0.02 | - |
Antioxidant (ethoxyquin) | - | - | 0.015 | - |
Methionine | - | - | - | 0.5 |
Nutrient content, % | ||||
Crude protein | 52.2 | 49 | 37.1 | 40 |
Lipid | 9.5 | 10 | 7.8 | NA |
Crude fibre | NA | NA | 7.0 | NA |
Ash | NA | NA | 12.9 | NA |
3 Author cites that wheat gluten would be a better binding agent; Kanazawa (1984)
Source: AQUACOP (1983) - Diet 1 & 2; Kanazawa (1984) - Diet 3 (also fed as a complete diet for P. merguiensis, AQUACOP (1977)
16. Shrimp (P. californiensis) - dry diet, crumble
Ingredient (%) | Post larvae | |
1 | 2 | |
Fish meal, 60% protein | 20 | 20 |
Shrimp meal, 46% protein | 20 | 15 |
Soybean meal, 48% protein | 29.2 | 34.2 |
n-Paraffin yeast, dried | 10 | 10 |
Wheat, whole, ground | 18 | 13 |
Fish solubles | 2 | 2 |
Corn oil | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Cod liver oil | 1 | 1 |
Cholesterol | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Choline chloride | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Antioxidant (ethoxyquin) | 0.015 | 0.015 |
Vitamin premix 1 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
Sodium alginate (binder) 2 | 1 | 1 |
Sodium hexametaphosphate | 1 | 1 |
Nutrient content, % dry weight | ||
Crude protein | 42.5 | 44.2 |
Lipid | 4.8 | 4.8 |
Crude fibre | 3.4 | 3.2 |
Source: Brand and Colvin (1977)
17. Giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) - dry diet, pellet
Ingredient (%) | Post larvae / juveniles | |||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Fish meal, 65% protein, 10% lipid | 14.9 | - | - | - |
Shrimp meal, 42% protein, 2% lipid | 42.3 | - | - | - |
Soybean meal, 45% protein, 5% lipid | 9.6 | - | - | - |
Copra meal, 25% protein, 13% lipid | 14.4 | - | - | - |
Fish meal | - | 20 | - | 10 |
Soybean meal | - | 9 | 4 | 5 |
Rice bran | - | 45 | 35 | 25.5 |
Coconut oil cake | - | 20 | 20 | - |
Tapioca | - | 5 | 9 | - |
Shrimp head meal | - | - | 30 | 25 |
Groundnut meal | - | - | - | 5 |
Wheat flour, 14% protein, 1% lipid | 12.8 | - | - | - |
Palm oil | 2.4 | - | - | - |
Fish oil (Trichogaster pectoralis) | - | - | - | 3 |
Broken rice | - | - | - | 25.5 |
Mineral premix 1 | 3 | - | - | - |
Vitamin premix 2 | 0.2 | - | - | - |
Pfizer premix A 3 | - | 1 | 1 | - |
Binder (agar) | - | - | 1 | - |
Binder (basfin) | 0.5 | - | - | - |
Binder (guar gum) | - | - | - | 1 |
Calcium propionate (anti-fungal agent) | 0.25 | - | - | - |
Nutrient content, % | ||||
Moisture | 8.6 | NA | NA | NA |
Crude protein | 39.5 | 24.7 | 24.5 | 25.0 |
Lipid | 6.9 | 9.0 | 6.1 | NA |
3 No details of composition given
Source: Thong (1985) - Diet 1; Manik (1976) - Diet 2 & 3; Boonyaratpalin and New (1982) - Diet 4
PURIFIED COMPLETE EXPERIMENTAL TEST DIETS - FISH AND SHRIMP
18. Fish standard reference diets
Ingredients (%) | H-440 1 | C102 2 | NRC(1983) |
Casein, vitamin free | 38 | 40–(45) | 32 |
Gelatin | 12 | 4 | 8 |
Starch | - | 11–(16) | - |
dextrin, white | 28 | 9 | 30 |
D-glucose (cerelose) | - | 5 | - |
Cellulose flour | - | 3 | 19 |
Soybean oil | - | - | 3 |
Corn oil | 6 | - | - |
Cod liver oil | 3 | - | - |
Fish oil | - | 15-(10)3 | 3 |
Amino acid supplement 4 | - | 2 | - |
Vitamin premix H-440 5 | 9 | - | - |
Vitamin premix C102 6 | - | 3 | - |
Vitamin premix NRC (1983) 7 | - | - | 1 |
Mineral premix H-440 8 | 4 | - | - |
Mineral premix C102 9 | - | 8 | - |
Mineral premix NRC (1983) 10 | - | - | 4 |
3 Marine oil with 0.05% antioxidant (or other oils as required)
4 Supplement includes 0.5% methionine, 1% arginine and 0.5% starch
Source: Castell and Tiews (1980) - H440 Standard reference diet which has proven satisfactory for use with salmonids, char, catfish, carp, sea bream, sea bass, perch, red fish, pompano, red snapper, black cod and black bass. Cho, Cowey and Watanabe (1985) - C102 Test Diet. NRC (1983) - 36% crude protein diet containing 2.9 kcal digestible energy/g; semi-purified test diet for warmwater finfish.
19. Shrimp/crustacean standard reference diets
Ingredients (%) | Diet: | Kanazawa 1 | Crab protein 2 | Bodega Bay 81S 3 |
Casein, vitamin free | 50 | - | 31 | |
Egg white, spray dried | - | - | 4 | |
Crab protein | - | 40 | - | |
Wheat gluten | - | 5 | 5 | |
Corn starch | 4 | 15 | 24 | |
Glucose | 5.5 | - | - | |
Sucrose | 10 | - | - | |
Glucosamine HCl | 0.8 | - | - | |
Dextrin | - | 5 | - | |
Alpha cellulose | 9.3 | 17.8 | 12.1 | |
Residual fish oil (vitamin A free) | 8 | - | - | |
Cholesterol | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | |
Refined soy lecithin | - | - | 10 | |
Cod liver oil | - | 6 | 4 | |
Corn oil | - | 3 | 2 | |
Sodium citrate | 0.3 | -> | - | |
Sodium succinate | 0.3 | - | - | |
Vitamin premix - Kanazawa 4 | 2.7 | - | - | |
Vitamin premix - crab protein 5 | - | 2 | - | |
Vitamin premix - Bodega Bay 6 | - | - | 4 | |
Mineral premix - Kanazawa 7 | 8.6 | - | - | |
Mineral premix 8 | - | 4 | 3 | |
Choline chloride | - | 1 | - | |
Dl-alpha-tocopherol | - | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
Vitamin A (50,000 IU/g) | - | - | 0.1 | |
Vitamin D3 (400,000 IU/g) | - | - | 0.1 |
1 Prepared as a moist diet by adding 3g agar and 130ml water/100g dry diet.
2 Dry diet contains 38.1% crude protein, 10.5% lipid and 6.5% ash (dry weight basis).
3 Dry diet contains 38.8% crude protein, 12.9% lipid and 3.7% ash (dry weight basis).
8 Modified Bernhart-Tomarelli salt mixture.
Source: Kanazawa, Teshima and Tokiwa (1977) - semipurified test diet for Penaeid shrimp Castell (1986) - crab protein and Bodega Bay reference diets for crustaceans.