Nutritive value of nutritionally upgraded sunflower meal for post-juvenile Atlantic

salmon (Salmo salar) in sea water

N. Gill 1/, D. Higgs 2/, B. Skura 1/, M. Rowshandeli 2/, B. Dosanjh 3/, and J. Mann 3

1/ Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, UBC2/ Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, West Vancouver Lab.

3/ Ewos Canada Ltd.

Rationale

• Diets for farmed Atlantic salmon are too costly (contain significant amounts of fishmeal and oil).

• Global supplies of fishmeal and oil are finite. Costs will increase unless suitable alternatives are identified/and or developed.

• Nutritionally upgraded oilseed protein and lipid products offer great potential (economical production procedures need to be used or developed).

Percentage cost breakdown of an Atlantic salmon grower diet (39% protein, 33% fat)

Total global estimates for fishery catches, products produced and used (Hardy et al.,

2000; Tidwell and Allan, 2001, USDA 2002)

FISHMEAL PRICES US$ FOB/MT - PERU

300350400450500550600650700

Jun-99

Oct-99

Feb-00

Jun-00

Oct-00

Feb-01

Jun-01

Oct-01

Feb-02

Jun-02

MONTHS

PRIC

E U

S$ P

ER M

T

Special Prime 68-120-1000

Taiwan67 - 120FOB - FCL

Thailand67 - 150FOB - FCLFAQ 67

FOB - FCL

FAQ 65FAS

World protein meal production (million tonnes; 2002/2003; USDA)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

soybean rapeseed sunflower fishmeal

Prices (US $/kg protein) of fishmeal (Hamburg) and sunflower meal (Rotterdam; USDA;2001/2002)

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Fishmeal sunflower

Factors limiting sunflower meal (SFM) use in salmonid diets

• Low crude protein content in undehulled SFM (~25%)

• High fibre (>20%) and low bioavailable energy content

• Low lysine content• Chlorogenic acid (tannin-like compound;

may decrease digestive enzyme activity, amino acid availability and possibly diet palatability)

Previous research on sunflower meal in salmonids

• Work so far has focused on trout. No adverse effects on rainbow trout growth noted when partially de-hulled sunflower meal comprised either 33% (Scott et al., 1982), 36.5% (Tacon et al., 1984), 40% (Cardenete et al., 1993) or 41.8% (Sanz et al., 1994) of diet.

• To date no comparable work on salmon

Goal

• To determine the acceptable dietary level (nutritive value) of partially dehulled and extruded sunflower meal for post-juvenile Atlantic salmon in sea water

Screening of sunflower meal

Percent yields of different fractions of sunflower meal

F r a c t i o n 1 / S c r e e no p e n i n g s i z e

( m i c r o n )

Y i e l d ( % )

1 3 8 1 1 5 . 32 5 1 6 1 3 . 43 8 6 4 3 4 . 34 T o p d i s c a r d 3 7 . 1

1 / F r a c t i o n s 1 & 2 w e r e c o m b i n e d a n d p e r c e n t a g e s o f p r o t e i n , l i p i d a n d a s h o n a d r y w e i g h t b a s i s w e r e r e s p e c t i v e l y , 4 0 . 9 , 2 . 8 4 a n d 8 . 0 0 .

Experimental diets• Five steam pelleted dry diets (formulated to be

equal in digestible protein (442 g/kg dry weight) and digestible energy (19.2 MJ/kg dry weight) content were prepared for the study.

• Partially dehulled and extruded (Abernathy FishTechnol. Center, Longview, WA) SFM comprised 0 %, 6.8 %, 13.6 %, 20.4 % or 27.1 % of dry diet by progressive replacement of fish meal protein in basal diet on an equivalent digestible protein basis.

Ingredient compositions of diets DietIngredients

(g/kg dwb) 1/ 0.0 %SFM(Basal)

6.8 % SFM 13.6 % SFM 20.4 % SFM 27.1 % SFM

Austral fishmeal 450.3 413.1 376.0 338.8 301.7Sunflower meal(SFM)

0.0 67.9 135.7 203.5 271.4

Pre-gelatinizedwheat starch

122.3 89.8 77.3 39.8 2.3

Raw wheatstarch

20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Anchovy oil;stabilized

121.8 123.5 125.3 132.0 138.7

DL-methionine 1.82 1.88 1.94 2.00 2.09Santoquin 0.022 0.029 0.036 0.043 0.050Common ingred. 283.8 283.8 283.8 283.8 283.81/ Common ingredients (g/kg) = Blood flour, 50; squid meal, 70; wheat gluten

meal, 80; vitamin/mineral supplement, 40; soya lecithin, 10; choline chloride,(60%), 5.0; vitamin C monophosphate (42%),1.0; carophyll pink (2%), 2.75;permapell, 10; Finnstim, 10; chromic oxide, 5.0.

Protein and energy digestibility (%)

65

70

75

80

85

90

0.0%SFM

6.8%SFM

13.6%SFM

20.4%SFM

27.1%SFM

ADCproteinADCenergy

n = 3/diet each based on the analysis of combined intestinally dissected feces from 30 fish

Dietary proximate constituents and energy

DietProximateconstituent(g/kg)/energy(MJ/kg)

0.0 % SFM 6.8 % SFM 13.6 % SFM 20.4% SFM 27.1 % SFM

Dry matter 908 908 911 910 907Crude protein 493 486 487 480 504Digestibleprotein (DP)

430 421 418 411 431

Lipid 182 190 188 187 188Nitrogen-freeextract

228 218 215 213 179

Gross energy 21.0 20.9 20.9 21.1 21.0Digestibleenergy (DE)

16.8 16.4 16.4 16.2 15.5

DP/DE 25.6 25.6 25.5 25.4 27.9

Dietary crude fiber and chlorogenic acid levels (% dwb)

0.000.501.001.502.00

2.503.003.504.00

0.0%SFM

6.8%SFM

13.6%SFM

20.4%SFM

27.1%SFM

crude fiberchlorogenic acid

Experimental conditions• Triplicate groups of 50 (mean initial weight

~116 g) salmon /diet treatment• During study fish held in 4000 L outdoor

fibreglass tanks with running (25-40 L/min), filtered, oxygenated seawater for 84 days

• Water temperature (11.0-12.1 °C), dissolved oxygen (7.0-8.5 ppm), salinity (29.0-31.0 p.p.t.)

• Fish fed prescribed diet to satiation 2X/day

Outdoor tanks

Fish sampling• On day 0, 5 fish sampled for individual

determinations of whole body proximate composition and 5 for muscle proximate composition of whole fillets (L&R).

• On day 84, 30 fish sampled/tank (each intestinally dissected to obtain feces and then samples pooled and freeze-dried). Five fish individually analyzed for body proximate composition and five pools of 2 fish each for muscle proximate analyses.

Weight gain (g) and dry feed intake (g/fish)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.0%SFM

6.8%SFM

13.6%SFM

20.4%SFM

27.1%SFM

WGDFI

n = 3 per diet treatment each based on 50 fish P>0.05 diet & block

Specific Growth Rate (%/day)

1.361.371.381.391.401.411.421.431.441.45

0.0%SFM

6.8%SFM

13.6%SFM

20.4%SFM

27.1%SFM

n = 3 per diet treatment each based on 50 fish P>0.05 diet & block

Feed efficiency and protein efficiency ratio (g/g)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0.0%SFM

6.8%SFM

13.6%SFM

20.4%SFM

27.1%SFM

FEPER

n = 3 per diet treatment each based on 50 fish P>0.05 diet & block

Percent protein deposited and gross energy utilization (%)

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

0.0%SFM

6.8%SFM

13.6%SFM

20.4%SFM

27.1%SFM

PPDGEU

n = 3 per diet treatment each based on 50 fish P>0.05 diet & block

Fish survival (%)

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

0.0%SFM

6.8%SFM

13.6%SFM

20.4%SFM

27.1%SFM

Survival

n = 3 per diet treatment each based on 50 fish P>0.05 diet & block

Whole body proximate composition (%)

01020304050607080

0.0%SFM

6.8%SFM

13.6%SFM

20.4%SFM

27.1%SFM

proteinlipidmoisture

n = 3 per diet treatment each based on 5 fish per diet replicate P>0.05 diet & block

Muscle proximate composition (%)

01020304050607080

0.0%SFM

6.8%SFM

13.6%SFM

20.4%SFM

27.1%SFM

proteinlipidmoisture

n = 3 per diet treatment each based on 5 composite samples of 2 fish (left fillets) each P>0.05 diet & block

Conclusions

• Nutritionally upgraded SFM – can comprise ≥ 27.1% of the dry diet or ≥

22.6% of the digestible protein in diets for post-juvenile Atlantic salmon

– no adverse effects on growth, feed intake, feed efficiency, health or body or muscle proximate composition noted

• Findings support previous studies on– rainbow trout, and tilapia

Acknowledgements

• We sincerely thank Ewos Canada Limited for funding the study.

• We also thank Dr. Ann Gannam of the Abernathy Fish Technology Center, Longview, Washington for extruding the sunflower meal and Allison Kozdron for technical assistance.