Evaluation of the formulated diet MySpat for feeding hatchery-reared spat of the green-lipped mussel,Perna canaliculus(Gmelin, 1791)

Abstract

As with most bivalves, a high cost component of hatchery and nursery culture of the green‐lipped mussel (Perna canaliculus) is the raising of live micro‐algae feeds. To remedy this, artificial feeds have been developed, however, these have had mixed success for this species. In this experiment, we tested the formulated diet MySpat (sourced from INVE Aquaculture) on P. canaliculus spat of approximately 1 mm in size. Performance measures under study were mussel spat growth and survivorship after 21 days feeding on varying proportions of MySpat. The experimental diets tested, consisted of a mix of T‐Isochrysis galbana, Pavlova lutheri and Tetraselmis suecica micro‐algae that were replaced with increasing proportions of MySpat, i.e. 25%, 50%, 67%, 75%, 90% and 100% MySpat replacement. Our results revealed no significant increase in spat mortality with increasing MySpat diet levels, and growth was equivalent to the micro‐algae only dietary control in all diets except the 90% and 100% MySpat replacement diets. Such results highlight the role MySpat could have for P. canaliculus hatchery operations, particularly with regard to reducing the costs of raising micro‐algae when producing seed for industry. A greater understanding of the particle selection process of this species would be beneficial for future studies seeking to employ artificial diets.

Microencapsulated diets to improve growth and survivorship in juvenile European flat oysters (Ostrea edulis)

“…Juvenile oysters in hatcheries today are fed on microalgal diets, a system which brings many challenges. First, growing live microalgae in hatcheries accounts for 50% of production costs at US$220 per kg biomass in 2016 (Gui et al, 2016b; Knauer and Southgate, 1999). Second, the microalgae produced are of highly variable and often poor nutritional quality for the oysters.…”

“…Second, the microalgae produced are of highly variable and often poor nutritional quality for the oysters. Third, algal cultures are susceptible to frequent contamination by bacteria which can result in sudden and dramatic population crashes (Gui et al, 2016b; Luzardo-Alvarez et al, 2010). Fourth, feeds can be a major vector of disease, and complete batches of oysters are often lost, sometimes leading to hatchery closure (Prado et al, 2010).…”

“…A microencapsulated diet consists of a formulation of nutrients and agents surrounded by a digestable capsule. Since the 1970s a small number of studies have tried using microencapsulated feeds including ‘MySpat’ (INVE Technologies, Dendermonde, Belgium) and ‘Frippak’ (Frippak Feeds, Basingstoke, Great Britain) to feed bivalves (Gui et al, 2016b, 2016a, Nevejan et al, 2007, 2008). These feeds are not directly representative of a natural bivalve diet; MySpat contains lipids originating from fish oils and protein from terrestrial vegetable origin, and Frippak is designed for shrimp and fish feeding (Langdon, 2003; Nevejan et al, 2007).…”

Lipidomics analysis of juveniles’ blue mussels (Mytilus edulisL. 1758), a key economic and ecological species

“…Early studies recognised lipids to be the main energy stores for bivalves up to 6 months post-settlement [25, 26]; Since then, evaluating the lipid composition of diets and juveniles gained a central importance on bivalve nutrition studies with examples available for clams [27–33], scallops [34–36], oysters [37–42] and mussels [19, 43–46]. Other than protein and carbohydrate composition, the nutritional properties of shellfish diets strongly depend on the essential PUFA (arachidonic acid – 20:4n-6, AA; eicosapentaenoic acid – 20:5n-3, EPA; docosahexaenoic acid – 22:6n-3, DHA) content [47].…”

Effects of replacing microalgae with an artificial diet on pearl production traits and mineralization-related gene expression in pearl oyster Pinctada fucata martensii

“…Researches on the nutritional requirements and artificial feed of bivalve molluscs are relatively more laggard than those on other aquatic animals (fish, shrimp and crab) . A few studies have reported the development of artificial diets in several bivalve species, such as microalgal concentrates (Brown & Robert, 2002), spray-dried microalgae (Arney, Liu, Forster, Mckinley & Pearce, 2015), single-cell detritus production from seaweeds (Tanyaros & Chuseingjaw, 2016), yeasts (Nell, Diemar & Heasman, 1996), microcapsules of varying types (Chu, Webb, Hepworth & Casey, 1987;Knauer & Southgate, 1997;Numaguchi, 2002;Numaguchi & Nell, 1991), bacterial proteins (Philippe & Christopher, 1994) and formulated diets (Gui, Kaspar, Zamora, Dunphy & Jeffs, 2016b;Gui, Zamora, Dunphy & Jeffs, 2016a;Mamat & Alfaro, 2014;Nevejan, Davis, Little & Kiliona, 2007;Nevejan, Pronker & Peene, 2008;Wang et al, 2016;Yang, Luo, Wang, Deng & Du, 2015a;Yang et al, 2015b). However, no artificial feed has been commercially and biologically reliable to substitute for live microalgal feed for pearl oyster.…”