Open Access

Apparent digestibility coefficients of the extruded pellet diets containing various fish meals for olive flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus

  • Md Mostafizur Rahman1,
  • Hyon-Sob Han2,
  • Kang-Woong Kim2,
  • Kyoung-Duck Kim2,
  • Bong-Joo Lee2 and
  • Sang-Min Lee1Email author
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences201619:27

DOI: 10.1186/s41240-016-0027-7

Received: 4 March 2016

Accepted: 18 July 2016

Published: 2 August 2016

Abstract

Apparent digestibility coefficients (ADCs) of dry matter, crude protein, crude lipid, energy, essential amino acids, and fatty acids in extruded pellets containing various fish meals were determined for olive flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Eight extruded pellet diets were prepared to contain different fish meals (herring fish meal, anchovy fish meal, mackerel fish meal, sardine fish meal-A, sardine fish meal-B, tuna fish meal, pollock fish meal-A, and pollock fish meal-B) designated as HM, AM, MM, SM-A, SM-B, TM, PM-A, and PM-B, respectively. Chromic oxide (Cr2O3) was used as an inert indicator at a concentration of 0.5 % in the diet. Feces were collected from triplicate groups of fish (151 ± 4.0 g) using a fecal collection column attached to the fish rearing tank for 4 weeks. Dry matter ADCs of the MM, SM-A, SM-B, and PM-A diets were higher than those of all the other dietary groups, and the lowest digestibility of dry matter was observed in the PM-B diet. Fish fed the MM, SM-A, and PM-A diets showed significantly higher ADC of protein than those fed the AM, SM-B, TM, and PM-B diets. Lipid ADC of PM-B was significantly lower than that of the other diets. Energy ADCs of fish fed the MM, SM-A, and PM-A diets were significantly higher than those of the other diets. The availability of essential amino acids in the MM, SM-A, and PM-A diets were generally higher than that of the other fish meal diets, while TM showed the lowest values among all the experimental diets. ADCs of fatty acids in the AM, MM, SM-A, and PM-A diets were generally higher than those of fatty acids in the other diets, and the lowest values were recorded for the PM-B diet. These results provide information on the bioavailability of nutrients and energy in various fish meals which can be used to properly formulate practical extruded feeds for olive flounder.

Keywords

Paralichthys olivaceus Apparent digestibility coefficient Fish meals

Background

Determination of the digestibility of nutrients in diets provides the first indication of their nutritional value and is considered as the first step of their quality evaluation (Allan et al. 2000; Glencross et al. 2007; Luo et al. 2009; Liu et al. 2009). Fish meal is certainly the best dietary protein source because it is quite palatable and provides an excellent balance of essential amino acids and fatty acids and some other substances (Hardy 2010). Fish meal is the preferred animal protein supplement in the diets of aquatic animals. It carries huge quantities of energy and is rich in protein, lipids, minerals, and vitamins. It also serves as the benchmark ingredient in aquaculture diets because of its high nutrient content and digestibility (Udo et al. 2012). Fish meal in animal diets increases feed consumption, feed efficiency, and growth through better feed palatability and also improves nutrient uptake, digestion, and absorption among other ingredients (Yisa et al. 2013). Some studies have investigated apparent digestibility coefficients of various fish meals in several fish species such as grower rockfish, Sebastes schlegeli (Lee 2002); juvenile snakehead, Ophiocephalus argus (Yu et al. 2013); juvenile cobia, Rachycentron canadum (Zhou et al. 2004); Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (Köprücü and Özdemir 2005); Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua (Tibbetts et al. 2006); and juvenile haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus L. (Tibbetts et al. 2004). The raw materials of fish meal are processed by heating, pressing, separation, evaporation, and drying. Heating condenses the protein, breaks the fat depots, and also releases oil and water. Pressing improves the meal quality and decreases the moisture content of the press cake as much as possible. Drying process removes sufficient water from the wet and unstable mixture of press cake to form a stable fish meal.

Extrusion process can cause physical and chemical changes, such as ingredient particle size reduction and inactivation of enzymes. In addition, the heat associated with the extrusion process may also cause deactivation of anti-nutritional factors (Allan and Booth 2004) and improve the utilization of nitrogen-free extracts or other elements (Burel et al. 2000). Extrusion may also confer important benefits to the physical attributes of pellets including nutrient digestibility, palatability, pellet durability, water stability, and pellet storage life (Barrows and Hardy 2000). Extruded pellets are highly recommended for fish culture because of easy observation of feeding activity, easy management, and minimal water pollution. Cho et al. (2006) reported that extruded pellets can improve the digestibility of ingredients and they are generally well accepted by olive flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus.

Olive flounder is a commercially important carnivorous fish widely cultured in Eastern Asia including Korea, Japan, and China (Kim et al. 2014). Previous studies were conducted to investigate apparent digestibility coefficients of various fish meals for flounder (Deng et al. 2010; Kim et al. 2010). However, only limited information is available on the digestibility of different fish meals in flounder-extruded pellets. Therefore, the present study was conducted to determine the apparent digestibility coefficients of dry matter, crude protein, crude lipid, energy, essential amino acids, and selected fatty acids from different fish meals used in extruded diets for olive flounder.

Methods

Diet preparation

The proximate, essential amino acid and fatty acid (% of total fatty acids) compositions of the test ingredients (fish meals) are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Eight experimental diets were formulated using steam-dried herring fish meal, anchovy fish meal, mackerel fish meal, sardine fish meal-A, sardine fish meal-B, tuna fish meal, pollock fish meal-A, and pollock fish meal-B (designated as HM, AM, MM, SM-A, SM-B, TM, PM-A, and PM-B, respectively) (Table 3). Chromic oxide (Cr2O3) served as the inert indicator at a concentration of 0.5 % in the diet. All dry ingredients were thoroughly mixed, and the experimental diets were manufactured using a twin-screw extruder (Model ATX-2, Fesco Precision Co., Daegu, Korea). Extrusion conditions were as follows: feeder speed, 16 to 18 rpm; conditioner temperature, 75 °C; main screw speed, 640 rpm; and barrel temperature, 100 to 115 °C. Extruder pellets were oven-dried at 60 °C for 6 h to maintain the moderate moisture content of 5 to 8 % and stored at −25 °C until use.
Table 1

Proximate and amino acid compositions of the fish meals used to test diets

 

Fish meals

HM

AM

MM

SM-A

SM-B

TM

PM-A

PM-B

Proximate analysis (% in dry matter)

 Dry matter

93.3

92.2

92.4

91.3

94.0

92.0

93.7

93.1

 Crude protein

73.4

67.3

76.6

71.5

71.0

62.7

74.7

63.3

 Crude lipid

10.4

8.6

6.8

10.0

10.2

10.6

5.9

5.4

 Ash

16.6

19.7

16.7

16.0

14.6

20.1

15.7

26.4

 Gross energy (kcal/g)

4.9

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.3

4.7

3.9

Essential amino acids (% in protein)

 Arg

6.4

6.0

6.5

7.1

6.4

6.4

7.1

7.0

 His

2.8

2.0

4.5

2.5

3.0

3.3

2.5

2.5

 Ile

4.4

4.0

4.5

4.1

4.7

4.2

3.9

4.2

 Leu

8.0

6.6

7.9

7.8

8.3

7.6

8.0

8.0

 Lys

8.4

7.2

8.6

5.8

8.9

9.3

5.7

5.3

 Met + Cys

4.2

3.9

4.3

2.7

4.3

4.0

2.8

2.9

 Phe + Tyr

7.6

6.3

7.5

8.0

8.0

7.2

8.3

8.3

 Thr

4.8

4.8

4.7

4.2

4.9

4.8

4.9

4.3

 Val

5.9

4.9

5.0

4.4

5.3

5.6

4.3

4.7

HM herring fish meal, AM anchovy fish meal, MM mackerel fish meal, SM-A sardine fish meal-A, SM-B sardine fish meal-B, TM tuna meal, PM-A pollock fish meal-A, PM-B pollock fish meal-B

Table 2

Fatty acid compositions (% of fatty acids) of the fish meals

 

Fish meals

 

HM

AM

MM

SM-A

SM-B

TM

PM-A

PM-B

C14:0

4.6

4.2

3.6

4.7

5.4

3.8

2.2

3.3

C14:1

0.4

0.3

0.6

0.6

0.5

1.0

 

0.4

C16:0

21.0

21.8

19.7

21.0

22.8

26.1

17.9

23.4

C16:1

3.5

5.6

3.6

5.1

6.0

4.7

3.8

5.7

C18:0

4.5

5.9

7.9

6.9

6.0

8.1

4.8

6.6

C18:1n-9

10.8

15.1

12.9

13.9

9.6

17.1

16.9

27.2

C18:2n-6

2.1

2.2

2.4

1.5

3.3

2.1

1.7

3.1

C20:0

0.3

0.4

1.8

0.8

2.6

0.5

1.5

0.3

C20:1n-9

3.3

1.7

0.9

1.0

0.8

1.2

3.5

3.3

C18:3n-3

0.8

0.4

2.6

0.5

3.1

0.8

1.8

0.3

C20:2n-6

2.6

2.0

1.4

1.5

1.4

1.2

1.3

0.6

C22:1n-9

 

0.5

 

0.9

 

0.9

2.5

0.9

C20:3n-3

  

1.6

0.7

2.0

 

1.1

 

C20:4n-6

1.2

0.8

1.6

1.8

1.6

2.5

1.7

0.8

C22:2n-6

0.6

 

0.6

0.6

1.5

 

0.8

 

C20:5n-3

12.4

16.4

9.4

11.1

13.0

6.2

14.1

7.9

C22:3n-3

0.4

0.7

0.6

0.5

 

0.3

  

C22:5n-3

1.3

3.2

2.5

2.5

1.4

1.2

1.6

0.9

C22:6n-3

25.2

17.5

22.5

20.9

15.3

20.4

20.1

9.3

n-3HUFA

39.3

37.7

36.5

35.8

31.7

28.1

36.9

18.1

HM herring fish meal, AM anchovy fish meal, MM mackerel fish meal, SM-A sardine fish meal-A, SM-B sardine fish meal-B, TM tuna meal, PM-A pollock fish meal-A, PM-B pollock fish meal-B

Table 3

Formulation and chemical composition of the experimental diets

 

Diets

 

HM

AM

MM

SM-A

SM-B

TM

PM-A

PM-B

Ingredients (%)

 Herring fish meal

72

       

 Anchovy fish meal

 

72

      

 Mackerel fish meal

  

72

     

 Sardine fish meal-A

   

72

    

 Sardine fish meal-B

    

72

   

 Tuna meal

     

72

  

 Pollock fish meal-A

      

72

 

 Pollock fish meal-B

       

72

 Wheat flour

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

 α-potato-starch

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

 Wheat gluten

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

 Fish oil

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

 Vitamin premixa

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

 Mineral premixb

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

 Stay-C (50 %)

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

 Vitamin E (25 %)

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

 Choline salt (50 %)

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

 Cr2O3

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Nutrient content (dry matter basis)

 Crude protein (%)

53.4

51.7

54.9

52.9

51.8

47.6

54.0

47.5

 Crude lipid (%)

9.3

8.5

7.8

9.6

8.6

9.7

8.0

7.5

 Ash (%)

12.6

16.0

13.1

13.4

12.8

16.4

12.3

20.2

 NFE (%)c

24.7

23.8

24.2

24.1

26.8

26.3

25.7

26.6

aVitamin premix contained the following ingredients (g/kg premix), which were diluted in cellulose: thiamin hydrochloride, 2.7; riboflavin, 9.1; pyridoxine hydrochloride, 1.8; niacin, 36.4; Ca-d-pantothenate, 12.7; myo-inositol, 181.8; D-biotin, 0.27; folic acid, 0.68; p-aminobenzoic acid, 18.2; menadione, 1.8; retinyl acetate, 0.73; cholecalciferol, 0.003; and cyanocobalamin, 0.003

bMineral premix contained the following ingredients (g/kg premix): MgSO4·7H2O, 80.0; NaH2PO4·2H2O, 370.0; KCl, 130.0; ferric citrate, 40.0; ZnSO4·7H2O, 20.0; Ca-lactate, 356.5; CuCl, 0.2; AlCl3·6H2O, 0.15; KI, 0.15; Na2Se2O3, 0.01; MnSO4·H2O, 2.0; and CoCl2·6H2O, 1.0

cCalculated = 100 − (crude protein + crude lipid + ash)

Fish and experimental condition

Juvenile olive flounder were obtained from a hatchery (Namhae, Korea) and acclimated to the laboratory conditions for 10 months. The experimental fish (151 ± 4.0 g) were then randomly distributed into 400-l cylindrical fiberglass tanks filled with 200 l of water at a density of 25 fish per tank. Filtered seawater was supplied at a flow rate of 3 l/min to each rearing tank. Fish rearing tanks had a sloping bottom leading to a centrally located drainage slot, and the effluent water was first directed over a fecal collection column before going to waste (Lee 2002). The water temperature was 21.4 ± 2.10 °C, and the photoperiod followed the natural conditions during the experimental period.

Feces collection

Triplicate groups of fish were hand-fed with one of the experimental diets to apparent satiation once a day at 15.00 h. Two hours after feeding, the rearing tanks and collection column were brushed out in order to remove uneaten feed and fecal residues. The next day, feces were collected from the fecal collection columns at 9:00 h. Feces collected from the settling columns were immediately filtered with filter paper (Whatman # 1) for 60 min at 4 °C and stored at −75 °C for chemical analyses. Fecal samples from each tank were pooled at the end of the experiment.

Analytical methods

Freeze-dried feed and feces samples were finely grounded using a grinder. Fish scales were removed from the feces samples using a 300-μm sieve before analysis. Crude protein content was determined by the Kjeldahl method using an Auto Kjeldahl System (Buchi, Flawil, Switzerland). Crude lipid was determined by the ether-extraction method. Crude fiber was determined using an automatic analyzer (Fibertec, Tecator, Sweden), while ash content was determined by treatment in a muffle furnace at 600 °C for 4 h. Gross energy content was analyzed using an adiabatic bomb calorimeter (Parr, USA). For amino acid composition, samples were freeze-dried and then hydrolyzed with 6 N HCl at 110 °C for 24 h. Amino acid concentrations in the experimental diets and fecal samples were determined using an automatic analyzer (Hitachi Model 835-50, Japan) equipped with an ion exchange column (Hitachi Resin # 2619, 2.6 × 150 mm, Japan). Lipid for fatty acid analysis was extracted by a combination of chloroform and methanol (2:1, v/v) using the method of Folch et al. (1957). Fatty acid methyl esters were measured by transesterification with 14 % BF3 methanol (Sigma, St Louis, MO, USA). The particular fatty acid composition was identified using a gas chromatography (PerkinElmer, Clarus 600, GC, USA) that has a flame ionization detector, equipped with SPTM-2560 capillary column (100 m × 0.25 mm i.d., film thickness 0.20 mm; Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA). Injector and detector temperatures were 260 °C. The column temperature was programmed from 140 to 240 °C at a rate of 5 °C/min. Helium was utilized by the carrier gas. Fatty acid composition from the samples was identified by comparison with retention times of the known standard fatty acid methyl esters (PUFA 37 component FAME Mix Supelco). Chromic oxide was determined by a wet-acid digestion method (Furukawa and Tsukahara 1966).

Apparent dry matter digestibility coefficients were calculated as 100 − (100 × (% Cr2O3 in diet/% Cr2O3 in feces)).

Apparent digestibility coefficients of nutrients, energy, essential amino acids, and selected fatty acids were calculated as 100 − (100 × (% feed marker/% feces marker) × (% nutrient, energy, amino acid, or fatty acid in feces/% nutrient, energy, amino acid, or fatty acid in feed)).

Statistical analysis

All data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance, followed by Duncan’s multiple range test (Duncan 1955) at a significance level of P < 0.05. Linear correlations were determined between nutrient digestibility and contents of the test ingredients (fish meals). All data are presented as mean ± SE (standard error) of three replicate groups. All statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

The apparent digestibility coefficients (ADCs) of dry matter, crude protein, crude lipid, and energy of the extruded floating pellet diets containing various fish meals for olive flounder are shown in Table 4. The ADCs of dry matter ranged from 69 to 87 %. Dry matter ADCs of the MM, SM-A, SM-B, and PM-A diets were higher than those of the TM and PM-B diets. The dry matter ADC of PM-B was the lowest among the experimental groups.
Table 4

Apparent digestibility coefficients (%) of dry matter, crude protein, crude lipid, and energy in olive flounder fed the diets containing various fish meals

Diets

Dry matter

Crude protein

Crude lipid

Energy

HM

81.5 ± 1.47bc

93.2 ± 0.31cd

90.5 ± 1.24b

90.7 ± 0.65c

AM

80.7 ± 1.71bc

91.6 ± 1.47bc

94.6 ± 0.71cd

90.3 ± 0.24c

MM

83.6 ± 0.74cd

95.3 ± 0.16d

94.7 ± 0.91cd

93.5 ± 0.49d

SM-A

84.4 ± 0.51cd

95.1 ± 0.18d

95.9 ± 0.06d

93.0 ± 0.07d

SM-B

83.5 ± 0.06cd

90.8 ± 0.08b

93.1 ± 0.46bcd

89.3 ± 0.11c

TM

77.5 ± 1.04b

87.2 ± 0.70a

92.4 ± 1.59bc

86.2 ± 0.40b

PM-A

87.0 ± 0.45d

95.4 ± 0.20d

93.6 ± 1.24bcd

93.9 ± 0.39d

PM-B

69.2 ± 2.97a

87.2 ± 1.29a

83.0 ± 1.82a

83.5 ± 0.98a

Values (mean ± SE of triplicate groups) in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05)

Protein ADCs of diets ranged from 87 to 95 %. Protein ADCs of the MM, SM-A, and PM-A diets were significantly higher than those of the AM, SM-B, TM, and PM-B diets while the lowest values were observed in fish fed the TM and PM-B diets. Lipid ADCs ranged from 83 to 96 %. The lipid ADCs of the PM-B diet was significantly lower than those of the other diets, and the SM-A group showed the highest value. Energy ADCs ranged from 84 to 94 %. The energy ADCs of the MM, SM-A, and PM-A diets were significantly higher than those of the other groups while the PM-B diet showed the lowest value.

Essential amino acid ADCs of diets containing various fish meals for olive flounder are shown in Table 5. In general, essential amino acid availability reflected crude protein digestibility, with fish fed the MM, SM-A, and PM-A diets showing the highest values compared to the other experimental groups. Amino acid digestibility values, for most essential amino acids, in TM were the lowest for juvenile olive flounder among the fish meals tested. Fatty acid ADCs of diets containing various fish meals for olive flounder are shown in Table 6. Among all fish meals, the ADC of selected fatty acids in PM-B was significantly lower than that of fatty acids in other fish meals.
Table 5

Apparent amino acid digestibility coefficients (%) of diets containing various fish meals for olive flounder

Essential amino acids

Diets

HM

AM

MM

SM-A

SM-B

TM

PM-A

PM-B

Arg

94.3 ± 0.39cd

93.1 ± 1.46bc

98.1 ± 0.03f

96.6 ± 0.19ef

92.9 ± 0.27bc

89.8 ± 0.65a

96.1 ± 0.14de

92.0 ± 0.39b

His

93.2 ± 0.41bc

90.8 ± 1.77a

98.1 ± 0.13e

96.1 ± 0.06de

92.1 ± 0.15ab

90.3 ± 0.62a

95.0 ± 0.28cd

89.8 ± 0.75a

Ile

92.7 ± 0.60cd

90.5 ± 2.23bc

97.0 ± 0.13e

94.9 ± 0.10de

90.6 ± 0.28bc

87.6 ± 0.86a

94.8 ± 0.32de

89.0 ± 0.48ab

Leu

93.1 ± 0.48cd

91.3 ± 2.04bc

97.3 ± 0.11e

95.3 ± 0.14de

91.0 ± 0.21bc

88.0 ± 0.79a

95.0 ± 0.19de

89.3 ± 0.43ab

Lys

84.5 ± 0.62de

92.3 ± 2.08cd

97.8 ± 0.11f

96.4 ± 0.04ef

91.3 ± 0.12bc

88.6 ± 0.93a

95.3 ± 0.21ef

89.5 ± 0.50ab

Met + Cys

96.1 ± 0.26d

94.5 ± 1.23c

98.5 ± 0.02e

97.3 ± 0.01de

94.0 ± 0.11c

88.5 ± 0.36a

97.1 ± 0.09de

91.1 ± 0.37b

Phe + Tyr

92.2 ± 0.67bc

90.2 ± 1.89ab

96.9 ± 0.10d

94.8 ± 0.21d

90.2 ± 0.22ab

88.5 ± 0.71a

94.6 ± 0.35cd

88.7 ± 0.42a

Thr

92.0 ± 0.42b

90.1 ± 1.83b

96.7 ± 0.12c

94.4 ± 0.24c

90.1 ± 0.12b

86.6 ± 0.66a

94.7 ± 0.34c

87.7 ± 0.48a

Val

89.9 ± 0.36c

86.5 ± 1.94b

95.7 ± 0.16e

92.7 ± 0.24d

88.6 ± 0.20bc

83.9 ± 0.81a

93.4 ± 0.76de

86.3 ± 0.51ab

Values (mean ± SE of triplicate groups) in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05)

Table 6

Apparent fatty acid digestibility coefficients (%) of diets containing various fish meals for olive flounder

Fatty acids

Diets

HM

AM

MM

SM-A

SM-B

TM

PM-A

PM-B

C14:0

91.7 ± 0.12b

94.9 ± 0.12bc

96.1 ± 0.16c

97.0 ± 1.51c

93.0 ± 0.47bc

92.9 ± 0.59bc

93.2 ± 0.47bc

80.6 ± 3.12a

C16:0

90.0 ± 0.13bc

92.2 ± 0.34bc

94.6 ± 0.17c

93.1 ± 0.40c

89.4 ± 0.71bc

87.4 ± 0.77b

93.7 ± 0.26c

69.7 ± 4.70a

C18:0

86.8 ± 0.27bcd

90.7 ± 0.66de

91.9 ± 0.24de

94.1 ± 0.37e

84.3 ± 1.02bc

83.7 ± 0.82b

89.4 ± 0.38cde

68.9 ± 4.69a

C18:1n-9

92.5 ± 0.62b

95.5 ± 0.17b

95.8 ± 0.31b

95.2 ± 0.25b

93.8 ± 0.32b

95.9 ± 2.16b

95.2 ± 0.21b

80.5 ± 2.53a

C18:2n-6

88.9 ± 0.74b

96.6 ± 0.27c

97.1 ± 0.29c

96.9 ± 0.22c

93.3 ± 0.75bc

95.5 ± 0.22bc

93.9 ± 0.24bc

72.1 ± 6.24a

C18:3n-3

93.4 ± 0.11cd

96.5 ± 0.27cd

97.8 ± 0.80d

96.4 ± 0.27cd

90.1 ± 0.40bc

85.8 ± 0.60b

91.7 ± 0.44bcd

61.3 ± 6.39a

C20:4n-6

95.7 ± 0.19c

97.4 ± 0.18c

97.1 ± 0.12c

94.3 ± 0.43bc

92.7 ± 1.87bc

94.4 ± 0.63bc

89.9 ± 3.15b

82.6 ± 2.59a

C20:5n-3

97.2 ± 0.07b

98.5 ± 0.08b

98.7 ± 0.08b

97.3 ± 0.48b

97.5 ± 0.21b

98.2 ± 0.34b

97.9 ± 0.20b

92.5 ± 1.52a

C22:6n-3

96.7 ± 0.05b

98.0 ± 0.14b

98.0 ± 0.36b

97.3 ± 0.20b

96.8 ± 0.14b

96.9 ± 0.57b

97.4 ± 0.10b

88.0 ± 1.89a

Values (mean ± SE of triplicate groups) in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05)

Discussion

Dry matter ADC of various protein feedstuffs offers an estimate of overall digestibility, and a low value generally indicates that a high level of indigestible material is present in the feedstuff (Li et al. 2013). Thus, dry matter ADCs have been considered to provide a better estimate of the amount of indigestible material present in feedstuffs in comparison with digestibility coefficients for individual nutrients (Luo et al. 2008). In this study, the MM, SM-A, SM-B, and PM-A diets were equally well digested and had higher dry matter ADCs than the TM and PM-B diets. These differences can be explained by the differences in origin, quality, and chemical composition of ingredients used in the diet. We found that the dry matter digestibility was positively correlated (r = 0.95) with ash content of fish meals tested in the current study. It has been suggested that a high level of ash generally affects digestibility of dry matter and results in high waste outputs and can also cause mineral imbalances. Therefore, the low dry matter digestibility of the TM and PM-B diets may be attributed to their high ash content (20.1 and 26.4 %, respectively). Kitagima and Fracalossi (2011) reported low dry matter digestibility for fish and shrimp offal meal with high ash contents. Similar results have also been observed in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Bureau et al. 1999) and hybrid tilapia (O. niloticus × Oreochromis aureus) (Zhou and Yue 2012).

The protein quality of the dietary ingredients is usually the leading factor affecting fish performance and protein digestibility and is the first measure of its availability for fish (Yu et al. 2013). The ADC of protein in this study revealed that the protein of HM, MM, SM-A, and PM-A must be highly digestible by olive flounder. This indicates that each of these fish meals can be utilized efficiently as protein sources for olive flounder. The ADC of protein for the SM-A diet (95 %) is higher than that previously reported for rainbow trout (Gaylord et al. 2008). The ADC of protein for the MM diet (95 %) is higher than that reported for juvenile Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei (Lemos et al. 2009). The ADC of protein for the HM diet (93 %) is similar to that reported for herring fish meal in the Atlantic cod, G. morhua (Tibbetts et al. 2006), and salmonids such as the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar (Anderson et al. 1997); coho salmon, O. kisutch (Sugiura et al. 1998); and rainbow trout (Burel et al. 2000). The ADC of protein for the AM diet (91 %) is similar to that reported for anchovy fish meal in salmonid species (Anderson et al. 1995; Sugiura et al. 1998, 2000; Thiessen et al. 2004; Glencross et al. 2005). In the present study, the protein ADCs of the TM and PM-B diets were lower than those of the other ingredients tested. The ADC of protein appeared to have a positive relationship with dry matter of the test ingredients (r = 0.84). The differences in ADC of protein among fish meals can be attributed to their different nutrient compositions, raw materials, species, locations, seasons of catch, and processing conditions used to produce the meal (Luo et al. 2008; Lemos et al. 2009; Terrazas-Fierro et al. 2010).

The quality of dietary protein depends on its amino acid composition and their digestibility and availability (Rollin et al. 2003). Lack of an essential amino acid leads to poor dietary protein utilization and therefore reduces growth and deceases feed efficiency. Although the data presented in this study suggest a reasonable agreement between protein and amino acid digestibilities, individual amino acid availabilities within a feed ingredient are variable. The amino acid availability coefficients of the MM, SM-A, and PM-A diets were significantly higher than those of the other experimental diets, suggesting that olive flounder can efficiently utilize these fish meals. In most of the cases, ADCs of essential amino acid in the TM diet were the lowest of all the fish meals that were tested, possibly due to lower quality of the starting raw material. Many researchers have reported that some amino acids of fish meal are inefficiently utilized or made unavailable due to differences in the processing conditions or the low quality of the raw material processed (Wilson et al. 1981; Anderson et al. 1992, Anderson et al. 1995; Yamamoto et al. 1998; Mu et al. 2000, Chu et al. 2015).

The ADC of dietary lipid usually ranges from 85 to 95 % in fish (NRC 1993). In the present study, lipid digestibilities were considered to be high (>90 %), except for PM-B (83 %). Previous studies reported ADC values of lipid in different fish meals including Peruvian fish meal (94 %) for juvenile snakehead, O. argus (Yu et al. 2013); white fish meal (78 %); and brown fish meal (76 %) for loach, Misgurnus anguillicaudatus (Chu et al. 2015). The digestibility of lipids is known to be influenced by a number of factors, including degree of unsaturation, dietary lipid level, and various other constituents (Yuan et al. 2010).

Digestibility of fatty acids is identified to be influenced by a number of factors including their chain length, degree of unsaturation, level of incorporation in dietary fat, and other constituent fatty acids and their melting points (Olsen et al. 2000; Martins et al. 2009; Oujifard et al. 2012). High specificity towards unsaturated fatty acids has commonly been found for fish digestive lipases (Caballero et al. 2002). In the present study, all diets showed high fatty acid digestibility except for PM-B. The low digestibility coefficient of fatty acids for the PM-B diet may be attributed to the poor quality of raw material processed. However, digestibility of individual fatty acids has been affected by other factors including emulsification, enzymatic hydrolysis, and micellar incorporation (Francis et al. 2007).

The ADCs of energy for the HM and SM-A diets, in the current study, are in the same range as reported in Atlantic cod (93 %) (Tibbetts et al. 2006) and rainbow trout (95 %) (Gaylord et al. 2008). It has been reported that carnivorous fish are capable of efficiently utilizing energy from animal products (Sullivan and Reigh 1995; Gaylord and Gatlin 1996; McGoogan and Reigh 1996; Lee 2002; Zhou et al. 2004). It was found that a high ash content of fish meal might reduce energy digestibility (Gomes et al. 1995).

Conclusions

The MM, SM-A, and PM-A diets showed higher dry matter, crude protein, crude lipid, and energy ADCs than the other diets. Due to variation within individual amino acid and fatty acid ADCs among diets, the use of specific amino acid and fatty acid ADCs may allow more accurate and economical formulation of the feed for olive flounder.

Abbreviations

ADCs, apparent digestibility coefficients; AM, anchovy fish meal; Arg, arginine; His, histidine; HM, herring fish meal; Ile, isoleucine; Leu, leucine; Lys, lysine; Met + Cys, methionine + cysteine; MM, mackerel fish meal; Phe + Tyr, phenylalanine + tyrosine; PM-A, pollock fish meal-A; PM-B, pollock fish meal-B; SE, standard error; SM-A, sardine fish meal-A; SM-B, sardine fish meal-B; Thr, threonine; TM, tuna fish meal; Val, valine

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Fisheries Science (R2016016) in Korea.

Funding

This study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Fisheries Science (R2016016) in Korea. The funding organization played an active role in the manufacture of the experimental feed and analyses.

Availability of data and materials

All datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

MMR conducted the feeding trial and drafted the manuscript. HSH, KWK, KDK, and BJL manufactured the experimental feed and performed the analyses. SML conceived and designed the study and experimental facility and also revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Experimental protocols followed the guidelines of the Animal Care and Use Committee of Gangneung-Wonju National University.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Marine Biotechnology, Gangneung-Wonju National University
(2)
Aquafeed Research Center, National Institute of Fisheries Science

References

  1. Allan GL, Booth MA. Effects of extrusion processing on digestibility of peas, lupins, canola meal and soybean meal in silver perch Bidyanus bidyanus (Mitchell) diets. Aquac Res. 2004;35:981–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan GL, Parkinson S, Booth MA, Stone DAJ, Rowland SJ, Frances J, Warner-Smith R. Replacement of fish meal in diets for Australian silver perch, Bidyanus bidyanus: I. Digestibility of alternative ingredients. Aquaculture. 2000;186:293–310.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JS, Lall SP, Anderson DM, Chandrasoma J. Apparent and true availability of amino acids from common feed ingredients for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) reared in sea water. Aquaculture. 1992;108:111–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson JS, Lall SP, Anderson DM, McNiven MA. Availability of amino acids from various fish meals fed to Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture. 1995;138:291–301.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson JS, Higgs DA, Beames RM, Rowshandeli M. Fish meal quality assessment for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) reared in sea water. Aquac Nutr. 1997;3:25–38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrows FT, Hardy RW. Feed manufacturing technology. In: Stickney RR, editor. Encyclopedia of aquaculture. New York: Wiley; 2000. p. 354–9.Google Scholar
  7. Bureau DP, Harris AM, Cho CY. Apparent digestibility of rendered animal protein ingredients for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture. 1999;180:345–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Burel C, Boujard T, Tulli F, Kaushik SJ. Digestibility of extruded peas, extruded lupin and rapeseed meal in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and turbot (Psetta maxima). Aquaculture. 2000;188:285–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Caballero MJ, Obach A, Rosenlund G, Montero D, Gisvold M, Izquierdo MS. Impact of different dietary lipid sources on growth, lipid digestibility, tissue fatty acid composition and histology of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture. 2002;214:253–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho SH, Lee SM, Park BH, Lee SM. Effect of feeding ratio on growth and body composition of juvenile olive flounder Paralichthys olivaceus fed extruded pellets during the summer season. Aquaculture. 2006;251:78–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Chu ZJ, Yu DH, Yuan YC, Qiao Y, Cai WJ, Shu H, Lin YC. Apparent digestibility of selected protein feed ingredients for loach Misgurnus anguillicaudatus. Aquac Nutr. 2015;21:425–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Deng J, Mai K, Ai Q, Zhang W, Tan B, Xu W, Liufu Z. Alternative protein sources in diets for Japanese flounder Paralichthys olivaceus (Temminck and Schlegel): II. Effects on nutrient digestibility and digestive enzyme activity. Aquac Res. 2010;41:861–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Duncan DB. Multiple-range and multiple F-tests. Biometrics. 1955;11:1–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Folch J, Lees M, Sloane-Stanley GH. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. J Biol Chem. 1957;226:497–509.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Francis DS, Turchini GM, Jones PL, De Silva SS. Effects of fish oil substitution with a mix blend vegetable oil on nutrient digestibility in Murray cod, Maccullochella peelii peelii. Aquaculture. 2007;269:447–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Furukawa A, Tsukahara H. On the acid digestion for the determination of chromic oxide as an index substance in the study of digestibility of fish feed. Bull Jpn Soc Sci Fish. 1966;32:502–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaylord TG, Gatlin III DM. Determination of digestibility coefficients of various feedstuffs for red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Aquaculture. 1996;139:303–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaylord TG, Barrows FT, Rawles SD. Apparent digestibility of gross nutrients from feedstuffs in extruded feeds for rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. J Word Aquac Soc. 2008;39:827–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Glencross B, Evans D, Dods K, McCafferty P, Hawkins W, Maas R, Sipsas S. Evaluation of the digestible value of lupin and soybean protein concentrates and isolates when fed to rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, using either stripping or settlement faecal collection methods. Aquaculture. 2005;245:211–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Glencross BD, Booth M, Allan GL. A feed is only as good as its ingredients—a review of ingredient evaluation strategies for aquaculture feeds. Aquac Nutr. 2007;13:17–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Gomes EF, Rema P, Kaushik SJ. Replacement of fish meal by plant proteins in the diet of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): digestibility and growth performance. Aquaculture. 1995;130:177–86.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Hardy RW. Utilization of plant proteins in fish diets: effects of global demand and supplies of fishmeal. Aquac Res. 2010;41:770–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim KD, Kim DG, Kim SK, Kim KW, Son MH, Lee SM. Apparent digestibility coefficients of various feed ingredients for olive flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus. Kor J Fish Aquat Sci. 2010;43:325–30.Google Scholar
  24. Kim KW, Kim SS, Khosravi S, Rahimnejad S, Lee KJ. Evaluation of Sargassum fusiforme and Ecklonia cava as dietary additives for olive flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Turk J Fish Aquat Sci. 2014;14:321–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Kitagima RE, Fracalossi DM. Digestibility of alternative protein-rich feedstuffs for channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus. J World Aquac Soc. 2011;42:306–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Köprücü K, Özdemir Y. Apparent digestibility of selected feed ingredients for Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquaculture. 2005;250:308–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee SM. Apparent digestibility coefficients of various feed ingredients for juvenile and grower rockfish (Sebastes schlegeli). Aquaculture. 2002;207:79–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Lemos D, Lawrence AL, Siccardi AJ. Prediction of apparent protein digestibility of ingredients and diets by in vitro pH stat degree of protein hydrolysis with species-specific enzymes for juvenile Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture. 2009;295:89–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Li MH, Oberle DF, Lucas PM. Apparent digestibility of alternative plant-protein feedstuffs for channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque). Aquac Res. 2013;44:282–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu H, Wu X, Zhao W, Xue M, Guo L, Zheng Y, Yu Y. Nutrients apparent digestibility coefficients of selected protein sources for juvenile Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii Brandt), compared by two chromic oxide analyses methods. Aquac Nutr. 2009;15:650–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Luo Z, Tan XY, Chen YD, Wang WM, Zhou G. Apparent digestibility coefficients of selected feed ingredients for Chinese mitten crab Eriocheir sinensis. Aquaculture. 2008;285:141–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Luo Z, Li XD, Gong SY, Xi WQ. Apparent digestibility coefficients of four feed ingredients for Synechogobius hasta. Aquac Res. 2009;40:558–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Martins DA, Valente LMP, Lall SP. Apparent digestibility of lipid and fatty acids in fish oil, poultry fat and vegetable oil diets by Atlantic halibut, Hippoglossus hippoglossus L. Aquaculture. 2009;294:132–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. McGoogan BB, Reigh RC. Apparent digestibility of selected ingredients in red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) diets. Aquaculture. 1996;141:233–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Mu YY, Lam TJ, Guo JY, Shim KF. Protein digestibility and amino acid availability of several protein sources for juvenile Chinese hairy crab Eriocheir sinensis H. Milne-Edwards (Decapoda, Grapsidae). Aquac Res. 2000;31:757–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. NRC (National Research Council). Nutrient requirements of fish. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1993. 114 pp.
  37. Olsen RE, Myklebust R, Ringø E, Mayhew TM. The influences of dietary linseed oil and saturated fatty acids on caecal enterocytes in Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus L.): a quantitative ultrastructural study. Fish Physiol Biochem. 2000;22:207–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Oujifard A, Seyfabadi J, Kenari AA, Rezaei M. Growth and apparent digestibility of nutrients, fatty acids and amino acids in Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, fed diets with rice protein concentrate as total and partial replacement of fish meal. Aquaculture. 2012;342–343:56–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Rollin X, Mambrini M, Abboudi T, Larondelle Y, Kaushik SJ. The optimum dietary indispensable amino acid pattern for growing Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) fry. Brit J Nutr. 2003;90:865–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sugiura SH, Dong FM, Rathbone CK, Hardy RW. Apparent protein digestibility and mineral availabilities in various feed ingredients for salmonid feeds. Aquaculture. 1998;159:177–202.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Sugiura SH, Babbitt JK, Dong FM, Hardy RW. Utilization of fish and animal by-product meals in low-pollution feeds for rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum). Aquac Res. 2000;31:585–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Sullivan JA, Reigh RC. Apparent digestibility of selected feedstuffs in diets for hybrid striped bass (Morone saxatilis ♀ × Morone chrysops ♂). Aquaculture. 1995;138:313–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Terrazas-Fierro M, Civera-Cerecedo R, Ibarra-Martínez L, Goytortúa-Bores E, Herrera-Andrade M, Reyes-Becerra A. Apparent digestibility of dry matter, protein, and essential amino acid in marine feedstuffs for juvenile whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture. 2010;308:166–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Thiessen DL, Maenz DD, Newkirk RW, Classen HL, Drew MD. Replacement of fishmeal by canola protein concentrate in diets fed to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquac Nutr. 2004;10:379–88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Tibbetts SM, Lall SP, Milley JE. Apparent digestibility of common feed ingredients by juvenile haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus L. Aquac Res. 2004;35:643–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Tibbetts SM, Milley JE, Lall SP. Apparent protein and energy digestibility of common and alternative feed ingredients by Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua (Linnaeus, 1758). Aquaculture. 2006;261:1314–27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Udo IU, Ekanem SB, Ndome CB. Determination of optimum inclusion level of some plant and animal protein-rich feed ingredients in least-cost ration for African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) fingerlings using linear programming technique. Int J Oceanogra Marine Ecol Sys. 2012;1:24–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson RP, Robinson EH, Poe WE. Apparent and true availability of amino acids from common feed ingredients for channel catfish. J Nutr. 1981;111:923–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Yamamoto T, Akimoto A, Kishi S, Unuma T, Akiyama T. Apparent and true availabilities of amino acids from several protein sources for fingerling rainbow trout, common carp, and red sea bream. Fish Sci. 1998;64:448–58.Google Scholar
  50. Yisa AG, Edache JA, Udokainyang AD, Iloama CN. Growth performance and carcass yield of broiler finishers fed diets having partially or wholly withdrawn fish meal. Int J Poultry Sci. 2013;12:117–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Yu HR, Zhang Q, Cao H, Wang XZ, Huang GQ, Zhang BR, Fan JJ, Liu SW, Li WZ, Cui Y. Apparent digestibility coefficients of selected feed ingredients for juvenile snakehead, Ophiocephalus argus. Aquac Nutr. 2013;19:139–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Yuan YC, Gong SY, Yang HJ, Lin YC, Yu DH, Luo Z. Apparent digestibility of selected feed ingredients for Chinese sucker, Myxocyprinus asiaticus. Aquaculture. 2010;306:238–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhou QC, Yue YR. Apparent digestibility coefficients of selected feed ingredients for juvenile hybrid tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus × Oreochromis aureus. Aquac Res. 2012;43:806–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhou QC, Tan BP, Mai KS, Liu YJ. Apparent digestibility of selected feed ingredients for juvenile cobia (Rachycentron canadum). Aquaculture. 2004;241:441–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2016

Advertisement