A total of six isoprotein and isolipid diets for Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., were prepared substituting from 0 to 100% of fish meal protein (0–68% of diet by dry weight) with meal from Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba). The feed produced from high inclusion levels of krill meal had lower ability to absorb lipid during vacuum coating than fish meal. Both amino acid and fatty acid compositions of the diets were fairly similar. The experiment commenced using salmon averaging 500 g and ended at a mean weight of 1500–1800 g (140 days of feeding). Moderate amounts of krill meal (20–60% of krill protein) in the diets increased growth during the first 71 days of feeding compared with the fish meal control, while no growth difference was observed during the last 69 days of feeding. This may, at least in parts, be explained by a feed‐attractant function of the krill meal. Muscle dry weight and lipid concentrations were unaffected by the diet. Feed conversion rate increased with high levels of krill meal in the diets (e.g. for the last period from 0.94 in the 0% diet to 1.26 in the 100% diet). This indicates that the fish were able to compensate by eating more to maintain growth. The apparent digestibility coefficients of dry matter and protein were not influenced by diet, but both faecal moisture and lipid had a tendency to increase at the highest inclusion level (all protein from krill meal). This may be related to chitin in the krill diet that is known to decrease lipid absorption and induce diarrhoea (increased water content in faeces). Chitin was not utilized to any major extent. Welfare parameters such as blood haemoglobin, red blood cell counts, plasma protein, cholesterol, triacylglycerols and glucose levels were unaffected by diets. Clinical indicators of cellular damage (alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase) were similar indicating no diet‐induced tissue damage during the trial.

The effects of partial replacement of fish meal (FM) with meal made from northern krill (Thysanoessa inermis), Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) or Arctic amphipod (Themsto libellula) as protein source in the diets for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus L.) on growth, feed conversion, macro‐nutrient utilization, muscle chemical composition and fish welfare were studied. Six experimental diets were prepared using a low‐temperature FM diet as control. The other diets included northern krill where 20, 40 or 60% of the dietary FM protein was replaced with protein from northern krill, and two diets where the FM protein was replaced with protein from Antarctic krill or Arctic amphipod at 40% protein replacement level. All diets were iso‐nitrogenous and iso‐caloric. Atlantic salmon grew from 410 g to approximately 1500 g during the 160 day experiment, and Atlantic halibut grew from 345 g to 500–600 g during the 150 day experiment. Inclusion of krill in the diets enhanced specific growth rate in salmon, especially during the first 100 days (P < 0.01), and in a dose–response manner in halibut for over the 150 day feeding period (P < 0.05). Feed conversion ratio did not differ between dietary treatments, and no difference was found in dry matter digestibility, protein digestibility and fish muscle composition. Good growth rates, blood parameters within normal ranges and low mortalities in all experimental treatments indicted that fish health was not affected either Atlantic salmon or Atlantic halibut fed the various zooplankton diets.

No abstract

No abstract

The main objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of using three different crustacean meals (Tysanoessa inermis, Euphausia superba, Themisto libellula) on product quality of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). In order to do this, a total of six iso‐protein, iso‐lipid and iso‐carotenoid diets were prepared. Two experimental diet series were prepared. In the first series, a control feed (K0) was compared with diets where 20%, 40% and 60% of the fish meal protein were replaced with protein from Northern krill T. inermis (K20, K40 and K60, respectively). In the second series, control feed (K0) was compared with diets where 40% of the dietary protein was replaced by protein from T. inermis (K40), Antarctic krill E. superba (AK40) and the Arctic amphipod T. libellula (AMP40). The salmon groups were fed the various diets for 160 days and the average weight of the fish increased from 410 g to around 1500 g. Fish given diets containing krill displayed a general better growth compared with the ones given pure fish meal diet. Replacing fish meal protein with protein from the crustacean sources had, in general, only minor effects on the flesh quality measured both by technical and sensory methods. However, some significant effects were noted. Postmortem muscle pH was generally lower (P < 0.05), for K20, K40, AMP40 in fish fed crustacean diets compared with those receiving the control diet. Increasing the replacement level of non‐fish meal protein from Northern krill (K20, K60) significantly reduced the rigor contraction. Fish given K20 had a slightly firmer meat texture, measured as resistance to post‐rigor compression, especially when compared with K60 (P < 0.05). Fish from the K20 and AMP40 groups had a deeper red flesh coloration [both light reflection (A*‐value and chroma) and flesh astaxanthin concentration] than fish fed K0 and higher inclusions of krill meal. The groups with the highest astaxanthin flesh content also showed the best growth and had the highest feed intake. Finally, a sensory panel analysis differed slightly from the technical measurements in that K0, rather than K20 was given the highest score for hardness and colour. In comparison with K0, AK40 got the lowest salty taste and hardness scores from the panellists relative to the control fish (P < 0.05). Despite minor effects on the present quality measures, it is concluded that meal from three different crustacean species can successfully replace fish meal up to 60% with Northern krill, and 40% of Antarctic krill and amphipod meal of dietary proteins.