Effect of hydrolysed fish protein and autolysed yeast as alternative nitrogen sources on gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) growth performances and gut morphology

Abstract

Effect of hydrolysed fish protein and autolysed yeast as alternative nitrogen sources on gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) growth performances and gut morphology ABSTRACTThe aim of the present study was to compare the effects of two different nitrogen-rich ingredients such as hydrolysed fish protein and autolysed yeast, on gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) growth performances and histological gut morphology. Animals were allocated to three experimental groups: the first received a fishmeal-based diet (FM), the second and the third received hydrolysed fish protein (HFP) and autolysed yeast (AY), respectively, to replace an equal amount of fishmeal. The experiment lasted 92 days. No significant differences in body weight and mortality were observed among the different groups. Villus branching, intraepithelial lymphocytes and inflammatory infiltrate of the submucosa were more prominent in AY than HFP and FM. The gut absorbent surface ratio was 5.94, 6.44 and 7.28 for group FM, HFP and AY, respectively, with statistical significant difference between FM and AY and between HFP and AY. A significant increment in the goblet cell density was observed for HFP and AY in comparison to FM. A statistically significant increase in small-sized goblet cells was observed in AY compared to FM. All our findings suggest that it is possible to use either HFP or AY, as partial replacer of FM in the S. aurata diet. HIGHLIGHTSYeast-derived products as a suitable alternative nitrogen source. Autolyzed yeast as a novel approach in the use of yeast products. Use of autolysed yeast for replacing fishmeal in aqua feed. Use of hydrolysed fish protein for replacing fishmeal in aqua feed. ARTICLE HISTORY

The effect of weaning diet type on grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) juvenile performance during the trophic shift from carnivory to omnivory

“…As the weaning diet Caviar TM included in the HP-LC and HP-LC:LP-HC diets contained 2% dw yeast hydrolysate, the gut maturation may have been hastened in mullet juveniles feeding on these weaning diets. In fact, yeast hydrolysate was found to be superior or equally effective as fish hydrolysate in improving gut nutrient absorption in Sparus aurata (Fronte et al, 2019). This was supported by Gisbert et al (2012) who also worked on the larvae and juveniles of this species and reported that microdiets containing either yeast or pig blood hydrolysate showed a lower incidence of skeletal deformities and enhanced maturation of enterocytes compared with microdiets containing fish protein hydrolysates.…”

Insect and fish by-products as sustainable alternatives to conventional animal proteins in animal nutrition

“…In European sea bass, FPH, manufactured from by-products of different farmed species (tilapia, shrimp) was included in practical diets as fishmeal replacer (5% dry matter) without compromising fish metabolism and performances (Leduc et al 2018). In gilthead sea bream, FPH was tested as partial replacement of fishmeal in growing feed without affecting zoo technical parameters and gut morphology (Fronte et al 2019). In white shrimp, diets supplemented with 10% FPH, represented by cooked (heads, fins, skin, dark muscle meat) and fresh (viscera) by-products obtained from tuna processing, improved the protein digestibility and performances in the juveniles (Hernandez et al 2011).…”

Yeast as major protein‐rich ingredient in aquafeeds: a review of the implications for aquaculture production

“…In fact, S. cerevisiae is regarded as the second most valuable by‐product from brewing industry (Ferreira et al 2010) and has potential as valuable raw material for different industrial applications, including feed for different fish species. A majority of studies in aquaculture have shown that S. cerevisiae (Table 5) could be used to partly replace fishmeal or soy protein without adverse effect on growth performance of aquatic species, such as Atlantic salmon (Øverland et al 2013), rainbow trout (Huyben et al 2017; Vidakovic et al 2020), Artic charr (Vidakovic et al 2016), catfish (Essa et al 2011; Peterson et al 2012), goldfish (Gumus et al 2016), lake trout (Rumsey et al 1990), Nile tilapia (Abass et al 2018), sea bass (Oliva‐Teles & Gonçalves 2001), shrimp (Guo et al 2019) and sea bream (Fronte et al 2019). In general, these studies showed positive responses even at high replacement level of fishmeal protein, except few where high inclusion of S. cerevisiae linearly depressed growth and nutrient utilisation in fish.…”

“…), rainbow trout(Huyben et al 2017;Vidakovic et al 2020), Artic charr(Vidakovic et al 2016), catfish(Essa et al 2011;Peterson et al 2012), goldfish(Gumus et al 2016), lake trout(Rumsey et al 1990), Nile tilapia(Abass et al 2018), sea bass (Oliva-Teles & Gonçalves 2001), shrimp(Guo et al 2019) and sea bream(Fronte et al 2019). In general, these studies showed positive responses even at high replacement level of fishmeal protein, except few where high inclusion of S. cerevisiae linearly depressed growth and nutrient utilisation in fish.…”