Utilization of genetically modified soybean meal in Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus diets

Abstract

The utilization of genetically modified soybean meal (GM SBM) was compared with that of non-GM SBM in Nile tilapia. Four experimental diets were formulated to include either non-GM or GM SBM at 34 or 48%, respectively. These diets were fed to juvenile Nile tilapia (49.5 g average weight) for 12 weeks. The uptake of the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter fragment of the GM SBM in fish muscle was examined at 8th and 12th week. After 12th week, fish were fed the non-GM SBM diets to determine the residual span of the incorporated promoter fragment. There was no significant difference in specific growth rate or feed efficiency between GM and non-GM groups at the same inclusion level. A small number of muscles from fish receiving both levels of GM SBM diet were positive for the promoter fragment. Additionally, the promoter fragment was not detected by the second day after changing to the non-GM SBM diets. These results indicate that the utilization of GM SBM was similar to that of non-GM SBM and the promoter fragment was rarely found in fish muscles, suggesting that suitability and safety of GM SBM in Nile tilapia diet were similar to those of non-GM SBM.

Suitability of genetically modified soybean meal in a dietary ingredient for common carp Cyprinus carpio

“…Sissener et al [17] reported that fish fed diets containing either GM or nonGM SBM had similar nutritional and growth status. These results are also in agreement with previous studies reported in other species such as catfish [7], Atlantic salmon [8,9,18,19], rainbow trout [10], and Nile tilapia [11]. This similar growth performance is a result of similar feed composition using either GM or nonGM soybeans given to the experimental fish.…”

“…In previous studies, the CaMV 35S promoter fragment was detected in the muscle of rainbow trout fed diets containing 15% GM SBM [8]. The CaMV 35S promoter fragment was also detected in the muscle of Nile tilapia fed diets containing 34 and 48% GM SBM [11]. In apparent contrast, CaMV 35S promoter fragment was not detected in the muscle of common carp fed 48% GM SBM diet.…”

“…These studies reported that biochemical compositions of GM soybeans were equivalent to nonGM soybeans. In addition, there were no effects on growth performance and feed utilization for carnivorous fish species such as catfish Ictarus punctatus [7], Atlantic salmon Salmo salar [8], rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss [10], and omnivorous fish species such as Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus [11].…”

“…a comparison to their nonmodified counterpart. Published research on the safety and nutritional quality of GM soybeans in fish feed is limited to only a few studies [7][8][9][10][11]. These studies reported that biochemical compositions of GM soybeans were equivalent to nonGM soybeans.…”

“…Recently, studies conducted to determine whether GM plant DNA was detectable in the muscle of Atlantic salmon fed a GM SBM diet indicated that no foreign DNA was deposited in muscle [8]. However, other studies have shown that the CaMV 35S promoter fragment was detected in the muscle of rainbow trout [10] and tilapia [11,12], although it was not detected on the second day after changing to nonGM SBM diet. This makes it necessary to study further the fate of foreign DNA in tissues, especially when high levels of GM plants are included in diets.…”