Microdietas y el cambio a la alimentación inerte

Luís Conceição
20 Mayo 2022
Tailoring your feeds

www.sparos.pt

SPAROS Lda

Science and technology-driven SME dedicated to the

development of new products and tailored nutritional
solutions for the aquaculture market
 SPAROS location & facilities

SPAROS Pilot-plant - Olhão

Olhão, Algarve
RIASEARCH - SPAROS trial facility
 SPAROS Products

BROODFeed WIN Flat WIN Fast

A complete feed for Premium weaning Premium weaning microdiet for
broodstock fish microdiet for flatfish fast growing marine fish larvae

ZEBRAFEED
A standard feed for
zebrafish

Predictive nutritional
tools
 Background

The fish larvae paradox

• Immature digestive system

• High growth rates (10-20%/day and up to 50%/day)
=> high requirements in terms of AA , HUFAs,
phospholipids, vitamins and other nutrients
 Early Nutrition:
Lives feeds vs. Microdiets
⚫ Easily detected by the larvae (swimming)
⚫ Highly digestible (water content > 80%, rich in
less-complex proteins)
⚫ Commercially available
⚫ Good results in practice

⚫ Improved nutritional composition

⚫ Better performance at later stages

⚫ More suitable diet (compared to live feed)

 Difficulties with live feed

Nutritional deficiencies (low in Availability / Predictability

protein and n-3 fatty acids) (climate trends)

Microbiological risks Labour intensive, crash risks

(costly)

• Sub-optimal growth (larvae and juveniles)

• Expensive in CAPEX and OPEX
• Quality problems (deformities, pigmentation)
 Difficulties with Inert Microdiets

Poor digestibility and/or Lack of knowledge on

Low attractiveness nutritional requirements

Leaching of FAA, vitamins & Technology to produce a stable

minerals well-balanced particle

• Low predictability in survival

• Sub-optimal growth (larvae and juveniles)
• Quality problems (deformities)
 Difficulties with Inert Microdiets

Poor digestibility and/or Lack of knowledge on

Low attractiveness nutritional requirements

Leaching of FAA, vitamins & Technology to produce a stable

minerals well-balanced particle

But considerable progress in the past 20 years !

Nutrition
Feed technology
 Artemia replacement is still a slow
process at many hatcheries

Mediterranean hatcheries use

40 to 120 kg Artemia cysts /
million fry
i.e.,
A variation of ~160 000 Euros
for a hatchery producing
20 million fry
Reasons for this variation (3 – 6 weeks of Artemia feeding) are:
• microdiets used – quality is variable
• risk perception by hatchery managers:
o Tank design / cleaning vs water quality / pathologies
o Skeletal malformations
o Easiness of operation
 Making a Weaning diet…

▪ Macronutrients
(Protein, lipids)
▪ Micronutrients
Nutritional
(Vitamins,
Requirements minerals)

TECHNOLOGY
▪ Digestability ▪ Water quality
▪ Bioavailability Premium Physical ▪ Buoyancy,
Ingredients Properties movement,
leaching
 Nutrition: a matter of balance

Water Essential amino acids

Fillers
Bioactive
compounds

Essential nutrients

Proteins Vitamins
Essential fatty acids

Carbohydrates Lipids
In marine fish larvae,
Minerals
all this in a particle:
100-300 µm
Guillaume et al. 1999
 Fish suffer dramatic changes
during development
Photos courtesy of S. Engrola Solea senegalensis

• Nutrient requirements are likely to change during ontogeny

 Fish suffer dramatic changes
during development
Photo courtesy of S. Engrola Solea senegalensis

• At first feeding most (marine) fish larvae have

an immature digestive system
 Optimal diet
Feeding may
regimes: change
ST, ArtR and Rot with
larval size
Solea senegalensis

Canada et al 2017

Diets with different types and levels of

protein hydrolysates
 Optimal diet
Feeding may
regimes: change
ST, ArtR and Rot with
larval size
Solea senegalensis

59DAH
20
b
15
Dry weight (mg)

10
a a
5

0 Canada et al 2017

Intact PH MH
Early sole larvae: high level of moderatly hydrolysed protein
Sole PL: low level of highly hydrolysed protein
 Early co-feeding promotes
Feeding regimes: ST, ArtR andgrowth
Rot
in the long-term

Dry weight (mg) 19DAH

1,6
a 19 DAH
1,4
1,2
b
1,0
c
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
Live
ExLF1 µdiet
ExH10 µdiet
ExH30
Feed H10 H30
 Early co-feeding promotes
Feeding regimes: ST, ArtR andgrowth
Rot
in the long-term

31DAH
Dry weight (mg)
8,0
a
7,0 31 DAH
6,0 a
5,0
4,0 b
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
Live
ExLF1 µdiet
ExH10 µdiet
ExH30
Feed H10 H30
 Does one larval feed fit all?

Dry weight Dry weight

(mg larvae-1) 60 DAH (µg larvae-1) 40 DAH
1000
4
750

2 500
250
0 0
Fishmeal Vegetable Vegetable Fishmeal Vegetable Squidmeal
MIX and Marine MIX
MIX

Diets with different protein sources perform differently

in sole and seabream
 Nutrition is key, but…
Feed technology is also critical
Technological challenges and solutions:

To guarantee the homogeneity of nutrients in each

particle (sizes from 50 to 800 µm)
• Ultrafine grinding (pulverization)
• High performance sieving

To reduce the leaching of highly soluble nutrients

(e.g. protein hydrolysates)
• Microencapsulation
• Coating

To guarantee a high palatability, reduce processing

losses (e.g. vitamins) and enhance water stability of
the feed
• Cold-extrusion
 Processing steps of a
crumbled larval microdiet

Dosing
Mixing Drying

Crumbling
Extrusion

Particle size
Grinding classification
 Novel technologies for microdiets

Main constraints in microdiets:

• Leaching of water-soluble
nutrients (e.g. minerals, AA)
• Digestibility of dietary protein
• Microdiet acceptability
• Water quality deterioration

Microencapsulation:
• Balance between digestibility and low leaching is still difficult
• Cost-effective technological solutions are needed
 Microencapsulation examples:
fluid-bed coating (bottom spray)

Gradual coating deposition

 Microencapsulation examples:
fluid-bed agglomeration

Principle: fluid-bed granulation by top spray

Versatility in fluid-bed multiprocessors: wide range of

applications
 Microencapsulation
Leaching & performance
Solea senegalensis

Leaching of soluble protein (%) Weight (mg larvae-1)

50
60
40
40 30

20
20
10

0 0
0 60 23 61
Time after immersion (min) Days after hatching
Encapsulated A Encapsulated B Extruded A Extruded B
 Take home message

Key message
A balance of these elements should result in an optimal fish larval nutrition:

Nutritional
requirements

Premium- State-of-the-
quality art
ingredients technologies
 Conclusions & Perspectives

• Nutrition and feeding of marine fish larvae and post-larvae

had major improvements in recent years

• Further improvement is possible (microdiets technologies,

meeting requirements, and formulations), including earlier
weaning, and drastic reduction in Artemia use

• Novel ingredients, such as microalgae and organic forms

of minerals, may bring either positive or negative effects
on larval quality. Careful evaluation is needed
 Conclusions & Perspectives

• Larvae of different fish species have different nutritional

requirements and may need specific formulations, to
avoid sub-optimal growth performances, cannibalism and
disease problems

• Improvements in early life survival and growth performance

are likely to be reflected also in better juveniles with higher
growth potential and less susceptibility to pathogens during
the ongrowing
 Muchas gracias por su atención

Organizan: Colabora:

29