NOAA-USDA Alternative Aquaculture Feeds Initiative - Public Comment
116 Pages
English

NOAA-USDA Alternative Aquaculture Feeds Initiative - Public Comment

-

Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

Description

Public Comment on Alternative Feeds for Aquaculture Comments Received by NOAA Nov. 15, 2007 through February 29, 2008 Contact: Kate Naughten Outreach Coordinator NOAA Aquaculture Program Kate.Naughten@noaa.gov (240) 687-9811 http://aquaculture.noaa.gov Dear Sir or Madam, Please allow me the opportunity to comment on the NOAA Aquaculture Program’s Alternative Feeds Initiative. I have worked in the field of Aquaculture for fourteen years; six of which were directly associated with the research of Alternative Feed Ingredients for Aquaculture. I now work for the California Department of Fish and Game. My research began as a graduate student at Purdue University under the direction of Dr. Paul Brown. I later continue this research in private industry for a large Canadian Agricultural Cooperative (Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Saskatoon, SK, Canada). My research included in-depth investigations of soy, corn, canola, pulse crops (i.e.. field peas, faba beans), alfalfa and flax. Through this research I found the most promising area to be a dry processing technology known as "air-classification". Air-Classification is a common process that utilizes a wind turbine to separate particles for various purposes. I have found that this process, when utilized with very finely ground pulse crops (particularly faba beans) can produce a high quality protein concentrate. The process works well on many ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 46
Language English


Public Comment
on Alternative Feeds for Aquaculture




Comments Received by NOAA
Nov. 15, 2007 through February 29, 2008




















Contact:
Kate Naughten
Outreach Coordinator
NOAA Aquaculture Program
Kate.Naughten@noaa.gov
(240) 687-9811





http://aquaculture.noaa.gov Dear Sir or Madam,

Please allow me the opportunity to comment on the NOAA Aquaculture Program’s
Alternative Feeds Initiative. I have worked in the field of Aquaculture for fourteen
years; six of which were directly associated with the research of Alternative Feed
Ingredients for Aquaculture. I now work for the California Department of Fish and
Game. My research began as a graduate student at Purdue University under the
direction of Dr. Paul Brown. I later continue this research in private industry for a
large Canadian Agricultural Cooperative (Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Saskatoon, SK,
Canada). My research included in-depth investigations of soy, corn, canola, pulse
crops (i.e.. field peas, faba beans), alfalfa and flax. Through this research I found
the most promising area to be a dry processing technology known as "air-
classification". Air-Classification is a common process that utilizes a wind turbine to
separate particles for various purposes. I have found that this process, when utilized
with very finely ground pulse crops (particularly faba beans) can produce a high
quality protein concentrate. The process works well on many pulse crops because of
the large size of the starch granules in these crops. When these crops are finely
ground (pulverized), the air-classification process is able to separate the large starch
granules from the small remaining non-starchy particles that are mainly composed of
protein. The research trials that I conducted with rainbow trout revealed that both
air-classified field peas (protein content 50%; commercially available) and air-
classified faba beans (protein content over 60%) were able to replace a substantial
amount of fish meal without reducing growth rates. What also appeared very
promising was the fact that these concentrates were produced through a dry
processing method and does not involve a wet process which would require
substantial energy to dry the ingredients. I would be happy to discuss these
ingredients with you further if you are interested.

Sincerely,

Paul D. Adelizi
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your questions on alternative feeds for
aquaculture. Developing alternative feeds to reduce the amount of fishmeal and fish
oil contained in aquaculture feeds while maintaining the important human health
benefits of farmed seafood is critical to sustainability of aquaculture in the United
States and abroad.

With regard to your specific questions, we offer the following:
(1) Groundbreaking research on alternative dietary ingredients (feedstuffs) for
aquaculture, including plant based proteins, is expanding the United States and
worldwide. Where should the federal government focus its research efforts in the area
of alternative feeds for aquaculture? Are there specific areas that the federal
government should not address?
- Science-based quality standards and processing procedures
o The adoption of any new byproduct for use in feeds by industry
will depend on confidence of quality of materials. Quality criteria by
which commodities are traded are common for South American and
European fishmeals. These quality criteria need to be meaningful and
complete (i.e., not just crude protein, ether extract and ash) and
geared toward use (e.g., shrimp in ponds have different needs than
broodstock).
- Palatability, digestibility, complementary amino acids, n3 highly
unsaturated fatty acids (HUFAs)
o As aquaculture expands, its demand for nutrient sources will
increasingly lead to further identification and development of non-
traditional sources, some of which will have low palatability and
digestibility, poor amino acid profile, and/or lack of essential fatty
acids. These problems must be addressed in a variety of ways, such
as: addition of attractants, modified processing methods, blending
complementary amino acid sources, using alternate n3 HUFA sources.
- Anti-nutritional factors
o Many alternative ingredients contain anti-nutritional factors
(toxins, compounds that reduce digestibility, molds, etc.). The
deleterious effects of some anti-nutrients can be mitigated by
processing methods, and ensuring the initial high quality of
ingredients.
- Other nutrients (e.g., minerals, probiotics)
o Fishmeal provides more than just a good source of amino acids
and fatty acids, it is also a good source of several minerals. As
fishmeal is replaced by other ingredients, the balance and bio-
availability of minerals needs to be considered.
(2) What are potential alternative sources of protein and oil for aquaculture feeds? For
example, are there specific opportunities for greater use of seafood processing waste
and other agricultural by-products in aquaculture feeds? Are there specific obstacles
to using these alternatives as alternative dietary ingredients in aquaculture feed?
- Co-products of biofuel generation
o Many of the byproducts of biofuel generation contain considerable
quantities of protein, which may have application in aquatic feeds.
Examples of these processes and their associated byproducts include:
Biodiesel production (presscake, solvent extracted meal) and cell wall
materials from oilseeds, nuts, fruits, and algae); ethanol production
[distiller?s dried grains with solubles (DDGS) from corn; stillage
(yeast) from sugar juice; vinasse from molasses]. Prior to use, each of
these will need to be characterized in terms of its proximate
composition, mineral content, amino acid content, etc.
- Seafood processing byproducts
o Byproducts from seafood processing have great potential as
alternative ingredients for use in aquaculture feeds, and are usually
rich in n3 HUFAs, well balanced in AA profile, and highly palatable.
However, there are serious impediments to utilization of these
byproducts, including logistical issues dealing with remote locations
(including the high seas), rapid spoilage, unpredictable and mixed by-
catch species, transportation, and dewatering.
- Krill
o Southern krill (Euphausia superba) are reported to be the largest
single species biomass on earth. They are high in amino acids, a good
source of n3 HUFAs and carotenoid pigments, and are very palatable
for aquatic animals. They autolyse rapidly after capture, which is
generally not good, but could be used to advantage (rich in proteolytic
enzymes). Some disadvantages include: harvesting sites are located
far from market destinations (transportation is expensive); drying is
expensive, as it is for all animal byproducts; fluoride content is high;
and issues of disease transfer may exist if the krill is not properly
processed (heated and/or dried).
- Meat and bone meal, Poultry byproduct meal
o These are available in significant quantities, but suffer from high
variability and unpredictability in terms of product quality and
nutritional composition.
o Reliable quality standards are needed, as described above. These
meals are generally good sources of amino acids and minerals, but do
not supply n3 HUFAs to an appreciable degree.
- n3 HUFAs from plant products (including algae)
o The main ?problem? here is that human consumption is the most
lucrative target for HUFA products. It is likely that the extraction
process from algal products is highly efficient, leaving little for
aquaculture. This isn?t a significant problem, because the target of
aquaculture is human food. It?s only a problem for aquaculture per se,
since fish and shrimp need these n3 HUFAs.
o Potential also exists for obtaining HUFAs from algae grown for the
biofuels industry. The biodiesel conversion process favors the shorter
chain fatty acids, leaving the longer chain fatty acids available for
extraction and subsequent use in human
food supplements and aquaculture feeds.
(3) What type of treatments or processes show promise for improvement of existing
aquaculture feedstuffs and for developing new feedstuffs? How soon could these
technologies be commercialized?
- Enzymes (proteolytic, non-starch polysaccharides (NSP), phytase)
o Pretreatment of ingredients with specific enzymes could improve
acceptability (palatability) and nutritional quality, but increases their
cost of production. The best option is using enzyme-rich ingredients in
combination with other ingredients. For example, co-processing krill or
arrowtooth flounder from Alaska (very high in proteolytic enzymes)
with plant protein ingredients could result in highly digestible, nutrient-
rich, cost-effective products. Of course, getting these products
together in a way that makes sense is a challenge.
- Extrusion processing optimization of a wet protein co-product
ingredient (e.g., stabilized high-moisture algal cell walls, raw seafood
processing waste, etc.) can be used in place of the make up water that
is normally added during the extrusion process, thereby reducing some
of the high costs of drying.
(4) Fish meal and fish oil contribute important human nutritional components to
aquaculture feeds such as n3 fatty acids. As the aquaculture feeds industry seeks to
replace fish meal and fish oil with alternatives, how can the nutritional benefits of
farmed seafood be maintained or enhanced? For example, what technologies exist for
producing n3 fatty acids?
- Organisms can be bred to produce lipids that contain high levels of n3
HUFAs, a better amino acid balance, reduced anti-nutritional factors
(e.g., phytase), etc.
- Single celled organisms (heterotrophs, autotrophs).
- Fractioning oils to concentrate n3 HUFA fatty acid.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact
me or Dr. Warren Dominy, Chief of the Feeds and Nutrition Department at Oceanic
Institute.

Bruce S. Anderson, Ph.D.
President
Oceanic Institute Algae, yes. Soybeans, NO!!!!
Suggestion: grinding up those obnoxious New Zealand mud snail and mitten crabs.
The whole concept of aquaculture rests on confinement of fish contrary to the natural
motion - you iknow that -lack of sufficient movement plus overabundance of food
yield a substandard product. Basically fish are hunters, even predators and the
overabundance of pelletized food limit the hormone and muscle structure of the fish
by not allowing it to perform it's natural function of hunting for it's food. The
aquaculture farms have too many fish to begin with -- that's from greed -- looking at
the bottom line profit.
How could anybody in their right mind suggest soybeans -- justs because it's
convenient and plentiful -- you'd be better off making diesel fuel from soybeans.
Soybeans are such an un-natural food to begin with and then it would be subject to
all kinds of processing which produces an artifical food unable to be utilized.
Secondly, the phytoestrogens in soybeans may have a significant deleterious effect
on the fish. Soybeans have not turned out to be the miracle food for humans so why
think it would be the miracle food for fish -- just because it's lower on the food
chain?
I, myself, don't buy farmed fish -- I find it too soft and lacking in flavor, it's like
there's no "meat" to it.

Anonymous i have a plan for using rendered animal proteins, as a substitute for fishmeal, in a biofloc
system along with small hammer mill and extruders to recover proteins from heads that
are discarded during processing, including from nearby farms an onsite integrated feed
mill, i need investors

Anonymous Why not produce herring, menhaden or sardines commercially in open ocean
aquaculture?
1) All areas of research into dietary ingredients for aquaculture should be addressed.

2) Alternative dietary ingredients might include recovery and reuse of waste - both consumed
and unconsumed.

3) Aquaculture should be examined closely for its many and vaired impacts on marine and non-
marine environments. It has the potential to pollute and to exterminate species due to creating
competing genetic stocks or species mutations. I would prefer that fishing rights were linked to
the actions and inactions of specific participants to preserve and enhance the world's fisheries
and marine health in general.

4) Walnut farming and other sources of Omega 3's should be considered. We suspect/know
feeding same species mamals and poultry biproducts is linked to disease. That should be a
warning when feeding fish and other marine species ingredients from fish.
Fish meal replacement in diet for Nile tilapia

Egyptian research compared a commercial tilapia diet containing 20% fish meal and
30% soybean meal to diets with all of the protein coming from soybean meal with
graded levels of L-lysine supplementation formulated for Nile tilapia fingerlings. After
feeding for ten weeks, the diet containing 55% soybean meal and 0.5% L-lysine was
significantly (P>0.05) better than the commercial tilapia diet with respect to final
weight, weight gain, feed conversion, protein efficiency ratio and feed intake. This
diet had the highest digestibility coefficients for protein, fat and energy. These
researchers suggested that a diet with 55% soybean meal supplemented with 0,05%
L-lysine can totally replace fish meal in a diet for Nile tilapia fingerings without
adverse effect on fish performance.

ElSaidy, D.M.S.D. and M.M.A. Gaber. 2002. Complete replacement of fish meal by
soybean meal with dietary L-lysine supplementation for Nile tilapia Oreochromis
niloticus (L.) fingerings. J. World Aquaculture Soc. 33(3): 297-306.

Menakhem Ben-Yami
Fisheries Adviser