North American Journal of Aquaculture

159 Pages·2014·3.33 MB·English

This article was downloaded by: [Department Of Fisheries]
On: 17 November 2014, At: 17:43
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
North American Journal of Aquaculture
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/unaj20
Potential for a Mycotoxin Deactivator to Improve
Growth and Performance of Rainbow Trout fed High
Levels of an Ethanol Industry Co-Product, Grain
Distiller's Dried Yeast
Blake S. Hauptmanad, Frederic T. Barrowsb, Stephanie S. Blockc, T. Gibson Gaylorda, John A.
Patersond & Wendy M. Sealeya
a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bozeman Fish Technology Center, 4050 Bridger Canyon Road,
Bozeman, Montana 59715, USA
b U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Trout Grains Project,
Bozeman Fish Technology Center, 4050 Bridger Canyon Road, Bozeman, Montana 59715, USA
c Archer Daniels Midland Research, 1001 North Brush College Road, Decatur, Illinois 62521,
USA
d Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana
59715, USA
Published online: 11 Jul 2014.
To cite this article: Blake S. Hauptman, Frederic T. Barrows, Stephanie S. Block, T. Gibson Gaylord, John A. Paterson & Wendy
M. Sealey (2014) Potential for a Mycotoxin Deactivator to Improve Growth and Performance of Rainbow Trout fed High Levels
of an Ethanol Industry Co-Product, Grain Distiller's Dried Yeast, North American Journal of Aquaculture, 76:4, 297-304, DOI:
10.1080/15222055.2014.902891
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15222055.2014.902891
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
NorthAmericanJournalofAquaculture76:297–304,2014
(cid:2)C AmericanFisheriesSociety2014
ISSN:1522-2055print/1548-8454online
DOI:10.1080/15222055.2014.902891
ARTICLE
Potential for a Mycotoxin Deactivator to Improve Growth
and Performance of Rainbow Trout fed High Levels of an
Ethanol Industry Co-Product, Grain Distiller’s Dried Yeast
BlakeS.Hauptman
U.S.FishandWildlifeService,BozemanFishTechnologyCenter,4050BridgerCanyonRoad,Bozeman,
Montana59715,USA;andDepartmentofAnimalandRangeSciences,MontanaStateUniversity,
Bozeman,Montana59715,USA
4 FredericT.Barrows
1
0
2 U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture–AgriculturalResearchService,TroutGrainsProject,
r
be BozemanFishTechnologyCenter,4050BridgerCanyonRoad,Bozeman,Montana59715,USA
m
ve StephanieS.Block
o
N ArcherDanielsMidlandResearch,1001NorthBrushCollegeRoad,Decatur,Illinois62521,USA
7
1
3 T.GibsonGaylord
4
7: U.S.FishandWildlifeService,BozemanFishTechnologyCenter,4050BridgerCanyonRoad,Bozeman,
1
at Montana59715,USA
]
s
rie JohnA.Paterson
e
h DepartmentofAnimalandRangeSciences,MontanaStateUniversity,Bozeman,Montana59715,USA
s
Fi
f WendyM.Sealey*
O
nt U.S.FishandWildlifeService,BozemanFishTechnologyCenter,4050BridgerCanyonRoad,Bozeman,
e
m Montana59715,USA
rt
a
p
e
D
[
y
b
d
e
d
a
o Abstract
nl
w CoproductsfromtheproductionoffuelethanolmayhavethepotentialtobeusedasproteinsourcesforRainbow
o TroutOncorhynchusmykissifdietarysupplementationstrategiesthatcanmaintainfishperformancecanbeidentified.
D
Arandomsampleofonesuchcoproduct,graindistiller’sdriedyeast(GDDY),containeddetectablelevelsofochratoxin
A,deoxynivalenol,zearalenone,fumonsinB1,andfumonsinB3.Therefore,thegoalofthisstudywastotestwhether
growth performance of Rainbow Trout fed GDDY could be improved by dietary supplementation of a mycotoxin
deactivator(MycofixPlus).Thestudywasconductedasa2 × 3factorialdesigninwhichthereweretwolevelsof
mycotoxindeactivator(0.1%or0%)andthreelevelsofGDDYinclusion(0,15,and30%).Alldietswereformulated
to include 42% digestible protein and 20% crude lipid and were balanced for lysine, methionine, threonine, and
totalphosphorus.JuvenileRainbowTrout(averageinitialbodyweight,26.4 ± 0.9g[mean ± SD])werestocked
at 15 fish per tank, three replicates per diet, and were fed twice daily for 12 weeks. Grain distiller’s dried yeast
inclusionat15%and30%ofthedietreducedthegrowthofRainbowTrout(P=0.0010).Incontrast,nosignificant
differencesinfeedintakeandfeedconversionratio(FCR)wereobservedforRainbowTroutfeddietshavingthe0%
and15%GDDYinclusionlevels.However,increasedfeedintake(P=0.0002)andFCR(P=0.0002)wereobserved
inRainbowTroutfedthe30%GDDYdiet.Onlyminortrendsofincreasedfishgrowth(P=0.0773)andprotein(P=
0.0527)andenergy(P=0.0538)retentionwereobservedwhenmycotoxindeactivatorwassupplementedregardless
*Correspondingauthor:wendy [email protected]
ReceivedDecember20,2013;acceptedFebruary12,2014
297
298 HAUPTMANETAL.
of yeast inclusion. These results suggest that there are minor benefits of myctoxin deactivator supplementation to
Rainbow Trout diets where mycotoxin contamination may be suspected but was independent of GDDY inclusion
level.
The production of ethanol in the United States increased the terrestrial livestock industry and fish culture (Jantrarotai
threefold between 2005 and 2010 (RFA 2011). Due to these et al. 1990; Jantrarotai and Lovell 1990a, 1990b). Mycotoxins
recentincreasesinbiofuelproduction,fuel-baseddistillersco- are structurally diverse and potentially highly toxic secondary
productsderivedfromcorn(maize)havebecomebroadlyavail- metabolitesproducedbyfilamentousfungithatfrequentlycon-
able.Subsequently,theuseofthesecoproductsasaquaculture taminate agricultural commodities used as animal feedstuffs
feed ingredients has been of increasing interest due to their (HusseinandBrasel2001).Itisestimatedthatworldwideabout
potentialfuturevolumes(Barrowsetal.2008a). 25% of farmed crops are contaminated annually with myco-
Graindistiller’sdriedyeast(GDDY)isaproteinsourceob- toxins, and annual damage to the U.S. agricultural industry is
tainedasacoproductduringtheproductionofethanolforfuel estimatedatapproximatelyUS$1.4billion(CAST2003).My-
4 andmayhavepotentialasanalternativeproteinsourceforfish cotoxicosis in Rainbow Trout was first recorded in the early
1
20 feeds. Gause and Trushenski (2011a, 2011b) explored the po- 1960s when hatcheries experienced losses of 70–80% of their
ber tentialofGDDYasafishmealreplacementindietsforhybrid fishduetothepresenceofaflatoxinB1 inthecottonseedmeal
m sunshine bass (White Bass Morone chrysops × Striped Bass inthepreparedfeed(AshleyandHalver1963).
e
v M. saxatilis) and found that GDDY could be included up to Aspartoftheongoingingredientevaluationprogram,aran-
o
N 13.5%, replacing up to 75% of the protein provided by fish dommycotoxinscreeningoffishfeedingredientswasconducted
7
1 meal(30%fishmealbasaldiet)onacrudeproteinbasiswithout and although no aflatoxin was detected, low but quantifiable
3
4 having a negative impact on growth rate and feed conversion levels of ochratoxin A (0.9 ppb), deoxynivalenol (0.7 ppm),
7:
1 ratio (FCR). In Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Haupt- zearalenone (133ppb),fumonsinB1(0.2ppm),andfumonsin
at man (2012) observed that the analyzed protein digestibility of B3 (0.1 ppm) were present in a GDDY sample. Although the
]
es GDDYwashigherthanthatoftheaveragemenhadenfishmeals effects of ochratoxin A, deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, and fu-
eri andcomparabletoanchovyfishmeal,soyproteinconcentrate, monsinsongrowthandhealthoffishhavenotbeenthoroughly
h
Fis andwheatglutenmealanalyzedbyGaylordetal.(2008).Grain investigated, a growing body of evidence suggests that perfor-
f distiller’s dried yeast amino acid apparent availability coeffi- mance is negatively impacted in some species. Manning et al.
O
nt cients(AACs)werelowerthanthoseforthefishmealsreported (2003) reported a reduction in body weight gain of Channel
me byGaylordetal.(2010).Growthresultsfromthefeedingtrial CatfishIctaluruspunctatusfeddietswith2ppmofochratoxin
rt by Hauptman (2012) also demonstrated significantly reduced Afor2weeksand1ppmfor8weeks.ReducedFCRwasalso
a
p
e growthandpoorerfeedconversionwhenGDDYreplacedmore observed in the same species at dietary contamination levels
D
[ than37.5%ofdietaryfishmeal(11.2%GDDYinclusion). of 4 and 8 ppm ochratoxin (Manning et al. 2003). Hooft et al.
y
b Numerous dietary supplementation strategies have been (2010)reportedthatRainbowTrouthaddecreasedweightgain
d
e identified to improve the performance of fish fed alternative and feed intake and poorer FCR, energy retention efficiency
d
oa proteins(Gatlinetal.2007).Thesestrategiesincludeadditional (ERE),andproteinretentionefficiency(PRE)duetoincreased
nl nutrientsupplementationbyincreasingessentialandnonessen- dietary levels of deoxynivalenol starting at levels of 0.5 ppm.
w
o tialaminoacids(Chengetal.2003;Aksnesetal.2007;Gaylord Lumlertdacha et al. (1995) reported that weight gain of Chan-
D
andBarrows2009;Snyderetal.2012),vitamins(Barrowsetal. nel Catfish was decreased at fumonsin B1 levels of 20 ppm.
2008b),andminerals(Barrowsetal.2010)aswellasnonnutrient Growth was similarly decreased in Nile Tilapia Oreochromis
supplementationwithproductssuchasantibodies,glucans,pre- niloticus at levels of 40 ppm or higher when fed fumonsin B1
biotics,andprobiotics(Sealeyetal.2009,2010,2013).Because (Tuanetal.2003),whereasCommonCarpCyprinuscarpiofed
many promising alternatives are plant-based protein sources, either0.5or5ppmhadreducedweightgain(Pepeljnjaketal.
concernshavearisenregardinganincreasedriskformycotoxin 2003).Onlyonepreliminarystudyhasinvestigatedtheeffects
contamination in alternative protein diets and whether dietary ofzearalenoneongrowthperformanceoffish(S.Do¨ll,Institute
strategiesarenecessarytomitigateagainstthispossibility. ofAnimalNutrition,Braunschweig,Germany,andcolleagues,
Asaby-productofethanolfuelproductionfromcorn,GDDY researchpresentedattheInternationalSymposiumonNutrition
is directly linked to the feed ingredient considered the pri- andFeedinginFish,2010,andthe33rdMycotoxinWorkshop,
marysourceofmycotoxincontamination(Whitlowetal.1998; 2011). In that study, Do¨ll and colleagues reported no adverse
Whitlow2004).Mycotoxinsareamongthemostcommoncon- effectsofzearalenoneonweightgainofAtlanticSalmonSalmo
taminants in animal feed, causing great economic loss in both salaratconcentrationsrangingfrom60to770ppm.
MYCOTOXINDEACTIVATORTOIMPROVERAINBOWTROUTGROWTH 299
Decreased growth performance similar to that reported in Uzwil, Switzerland) for 25 min at 102◦C with a 10-min cool-
fish fed the mycotoxins described above have often been re- ing period. The mycotoxin deactivator, Mycofix Plus (Biomin
ported in the results of experiments that were unsuccessful in USA, San Antonio, Texas), was mixed and applied after ex-
replacingfishmealwithalternativeproteinsources.Specifically trusion in the oil portion at the manufacturer’s recommended
growthresultsfromapreviousfeedingtrialbyHauptman(2012) level of 0.1% of the diet using a vacuum-assisted top-coater
demonstratedsignificantlyreducedgrowthandpoorerfeedcon- (A.J.Mixing,Oakville,Ontario).Analyzeddietarymacronutri-
versionwhenGDDYwasincludedatlevelsgreaterthan11.2%. entcompositionreflectedformulationtargets(Table1).
Theseresultscoupledwithourmycotoxindetectionledustohy- Fish sampling.—Ten fish from the initial population were
pothesizethatthelow-levelmycotoxincontaminationdetected sacrificedtodetermineinitialwhole-bodyproximatecomposi-
could, in part, explain the reduced performance of Rainbow tion. Throughout the study, fish were weighed every 3 weeks
TroutfedGDDY.Therefore,theobjectiveofthepresentstudy andfeedintake,weightgain,andFCRwerecalculated.Atthe
wastoexaminetheabilityofamycotoxindeactivator(Mycofix conclusion of the study, three fish from each tank were taken
Plus)toimprovegrowthperformanceofRainbowTroutfeddi- forwhole-bodycompositionandthreeadditionalfishweresam-
etscontainingthreedifferentlevelsofmycotoxin-contaminated pleddeterminethehepatosomaticindex(HSI),visceralsomatic
GDDY. index(VSI),andfilletratio(FR).
Analyticalmethods.—Drymatterandashanalysesofingre-
4
1 dients,diets,andwhole-bodysampleswereperformedaccord-
0
r 2 METHODS ing to standard methods (AOAC 1995). Crude protein (N ×
e
b Experimental design.—Grain distiller’s dried yeast was 6.25) was determined in ingredients, diets, and feces by the
m
e screened for mycotoxins by a commercial laboratory (Romer Dumas method (AOAC 1995) on a Leco TruSpec N nitrogen
v
o Laboratories, Union, Missouri) and found to contain low lev- determinator(LECOCorporation,St.Joseph,Michigan).Total
N
7 elsofochratoxinA(0.9ppb),deoxynivalenol(0.7ppm),zear- energy was determined by isoperibol bomb calorimetry (Parr
1
3 alenone (133 ppb), fumonsin B1 (0.2 ppm), and fumonsin B3 6300,ParrInstrumentCompany,Moline,Illinois).Lipidwasde-
4
7: (0.1ppm).Screeningofallotherdietaryingredientsshowedthat terminedbypetroleumetherextractionusinganAnkomXT10
1
] at m×y3coftaocxtionrilaelveexlspwereimreebnetlowwasdectoencdtiuocnt.eTdhtoeredfeotererm,ain1e2-wwheeetkh,e2r (AnSktaotmistTiceaclhannoalolygsieess,.—MTacheedsoonf,twNaerweYProorck)G. LMofSASver-
s
rie supplementation of a commercially available mycotoxin deac- sion 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was used for
e
h tivator at two levels (with or without) improved growth and factorialANOVA,andTukey’smeansseparationswereusedto
s
Fi performanceofRainbowTroutfedpractical-typedietswith0, determinedifferenceswithinmaineffects(J.W.Tukey,Prince-
f
O 15 or 30% GDDY (Table 1). There were three replicate tanks tonUniversity,unpublisheddata).Effectswereconsideredsig-
nt for each of the treatments. All fish were handled and treated nificantatP<0.05.
e
m in accordance with guidelines approved by the U.S. Fish and
rt
a WildlifeService.
ep RESULTS
D Fish culture.—Rainbow Trout eggs from a single lot were
[
y obtained from Troutlodge, Sumner, Washington, and cultured GrowthPerformance
b
d at the Bozeman Fish Technology Center, Bozeman, Montana, AsignificanteffectofdietaryGDDYwasobserved;growth
e
d untilthestartoftheexperiment.Fishwerestockedat15fishper was reduced in fish fed the 15% and 30% GDDY diets com-
a
nlo tank(averageinitialweight=26.4 ± 0.9g,mean ± SD).Water paredwithfishfedthe0%GDDYdiet(P=0.0010;Table2).In
w temperaturewasmaintainedat14◦C.Lightingwasmaintained contrast,feedintake(P=0.0002),andsubsequentlyFCR(P=
o
D ona13hlight:11hdarkdiurnalcycle.Fishwereacclimatedto 0.0002),weresignificantlyincreasedinfishfedthe30%GDDY
tanksfor1weekpriortothebeginningthefeedingtrial.Diets dietcomparedwithfishfedthe0%and15%GDDYdiets.No
wererandomlyassignedtoeachofthe18tanks.Fishwerefed statisticallysignificant(P>0.05)benefitofinclusionofthemy-
twiceadaytoapparentsatiation,6d/week. cotoxindeactivatorongrowth,feedintake,orFCRwasobserved
Dietmanufacturing.—Alldietswereformulatedtomeetor (Table2).NosignificantinteractionsbetweenGDDYleveland
exceed all reported nutrient requirements for Rainbow Trout mycotoxindeactivatorsupplementationongrowthperformance
(NRC 1993, 2011). Diets were formulated to contain 42% di- ofRainbowTroutwereobserved(Table2).
gestible protein and 20% crude lipid and were balanced for
available lysine (3.8%), methionine (1.3%), threonine (2.1%), BodyConditionIndices
andtotalphosphorus(1.5%).Dietsweremanufacturedbycook- There were differences in HSI, VSI, and FR due to GDDY
ingextrusion(DNDL-44,BuhlerAG,Uzwil,Switzerland)with levelsinthediets,butnoeffectofmycotoxindeactivatorsupple-
an 18-s exposure to an average of 127◦C in the sixth extruder mentation was detected (Table 2). Visceral somatic index was
barrel section. The die plate was water cooled to an average significantly increased (P = 0.0053) and FR was significantly
temperatureof60◦C.Pressureatthedieheadwasvariedfrom decreased (P = 0.0099) in fish fed the 30% GDDY diet com-
15 to 30 bar (1,500–3,000 kPa), depending on diet. Pellets of paredwithfishfedthe0%and15%GDDYdiets.Fishfedthe
4mmwereproducedthendriedinapulse-beddrier(BuhlerAG, 0%and15%GDDYdietshadcomparableVSIandFRvalues.
300 HAUPTMANETAL.
TABLE 1. Compositionoftestdietscontaining0,15or30%graindistiller’sdriedyeast(GDDY)withandwithoutMycofixPlusfedtojuvenileRainbowTrout
(initialweight ± SD,26.4 ± 0.9g)for12weeks.Dietsaredefinedbasedonthepercentageoffishmealreplacedbygraindistiller’sdriedyeastonadigestible
proteinbasis.
Diets(with%GDDY)
0%with 15%with 30%with
Ingredients 0% Mycofix 15% Mycofix 30% Mycofix
Graindistiller’sdriedyeasta 0.0 0.0 14.9 14.9 29.6 29.6
Menhadenfishmeal,specialselectb 25.0 25.0 12.5 12.5 0.0 0.0
MycofixPlusc 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1
Cornproteinconcentrated 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Bloodmeale 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Soybeanmeal,solventextracted 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
de-hulledb
Poultryby-productmeal,petfood 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3
4 gradeb
1
0 Wheatfloure 14.5 14.5 8.3 8.3 3.1 3.1
2
r Fishoil,menhadenb 14.6 14.6 15.0 15.0 15.9 15.9
e
b
m Lecithin 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ve Stay-C35 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
o
N Vitaminpremixf 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
17 Tracemineralpremixg 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
3 Sodiumchloride 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
4
7: Magnesiumoxide 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
1
at Potassiumchloride 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
s] Dicalciumphosphate 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 3.8 3.8
e
ri CholineCl 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
e
h
Fis DL-Methionine 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6
f LysineHCl 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.6
O
nt Threonine 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7
e Taurine 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
m
rt Yttrium 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
a
ep Analyzedcomposition(±SD)h
D
[ Crudeprotein(%) 51.4 ± 0.5 50.5 ± 0.1 49.4 ± 0.0 48.8 ± 0.7 48.6.4 ± 0.0 48.7 ± 0.3
y
b Lipid(%) 18.0 ± 0.3 19.9 ± 0.14 18.3 ± 0.4 18.1 ± 0.4 19.1 ± 0.02 19.7 ± 0.3
ed Grossenergy(kcal/g) 5,527 ± 2 5,566 ± 1 5,683 ± 10 5,652 ± 14 5,826 ± 11 5,816 ± 4
d
oa Moisture(%) 4.0 ± 0.1 4.2 ± 0.1 4.4 ± 0.04 4.8 ± 0.4 4.9 ± 0.04 4.5 ± 0.3
nl
w
o aArcherDanielsMidland,Decatur,Illinois.
D bNelsonandSons,Murray,Utah.
cMycofixPlus,BiominUSA,SanAntonio,Texas.
dGavilon,Omaha,Nebraska.
eMGPIngredients,Atchison,Kansas.
fContributedperkilogramofdiet:vitaminA(asretinolpalmitate),30,000IU;vitaminD3,2,160IU;vitaminE(asDL-(-tocopheryl-acetate),1,590IU;niacin,990mg;calcium
pantothenate,480mg;riboflavin,240mg;thiaminmononitrate,150mg;pyridoxinehydrochloride,135mg;menadionesodiumbisulfate,75mg;folacin,39mg;biotin,3mg;vitamin
B12,90µg.
gContributedperkilogramofdiet:zinc,37mg;manganese,10mg;iodine,5mg;copper,3mg;selenium,0.4mg.
hMeansoftworeplicatesamplesperdietonadrymatterbasis.
Hepatosomatic index increased significantly (P = 0.0350) as Whole-body protein, lipid, and energy ranged from 15.5% to
GDDYinclusionlevelincreased. 16.2%,from11.4%to13.8%,andfrom8,667to8,935kcal/g,
respectively.
ProximateComposition,PRE,andERE Retention efficiencies were slightly more responsive to di-
No significant differences were found in whole-body prox- etary modification (Table 3). No significant effects of GDDY
imate composition due to GDDY inclusion level, mycotoxin inclusion were observed for PRE or ERE. However, a signifi-
deactivator supplementation, or their interactions (Table 3). cantinteractiveeffectofGDDYinclusionlevelandmycotoxin
MYCOTOXINDEACTIVATORTOIMPROVERAINBOWTROUTGROWTH 301
TABLE 2. Growthperformance(meansofthreereplicatetankscontaining15fish/tank)andconditionindices(meandeterminationsofthreefishpertankfrom
N=threereplicatetanksperdiet)ofRainbowTroutfeddietscontaining0,15or30%graindistiller’sdriedyeast(GDDY)withorwithoutMycofixPlusfor12
weeks.
Growthperformance Conditionindices
Diet(with% Weightgain FCR Feedintake Visceralsomatic Fillet Hepatosomatic
GDDY) (%increase)a (gfeed/ggain)b (%bodyweight/d)c index(%)d ratio(%)e index(%)f
0% 670 1.00 2.2 13.1 45.3 0.97
0%withMycofix 734 0.94 2.3 14.0 47.4 0.97
Plus
15% 599 1.04 2.3 13.8 47.1 0.98
15%w/Mycofix 672 1.01 2.3 13.0 46.3 1.01
Plus
30% 561 1.22 2.6 15.5 41.7 1.01
4 30%w/Mycofix 572 1.19 2.7 15.1 43.9 1.1
1
0 Plus
2
er Resultsofstatisticalanalysis
b
m PooledSE 27 0.04 0.1 1.1 2.4 0.1
ve Pr>F 0.0037 0.0016 0.0014 0.0278 0.0401 0.0963
o
N ProteinP(Diet 0.0010 0.0002 0.0002 0.0053 0.0099 0.0350
17 comparison) (0>15>30) (0=15<30) (0=15<30) (0=15<30) (0=15>30) (0<15<30)
3
4 MycofixPlusP 0.0773 0.2480 0.3136 0.9371 0.3199 0.5453
17: Protein ×Mycofix 0.2604 0.8825 0.7526 0.3460 0.4677 0.3093
at PlusP
]
s
erie abWFCeRigh=tggarainm(s%d)ry=fe(fiednaclownseuigmhetd–/ginraitmiaslwweeiigghhtt)ga×ine1d0.0/initialweight.
h
s cFeedintake(%)=[(gramsdryfeedconsumed/averagefishbiomassingrams)/culturedays]×100.
Of Fi deFViilslceetrraaltisoo(m%a)ti=cinfidlleextw(%it)h=ribvimscaesrsa×ma1s0s0×/fis1h0m0/afisssh.mass.
nt fHepatosomaticindex(%)=livermass×100/fishmass.
e
m
rt
a
p TABLE 3. Proximatecomposition(moisture,fat,protein,andenergy)andnutrientretentionefficiency(PREandERE)ofRainbowTroutfeddietscontaining0,
e
D 15,or30%graindistiller’sdriedyeast(GDDY)withorwithoutMycofixPlusfor12weeks.ValuesaremeandeterminationsinthreefishpertankfromN=three
[
y replicatetanksperdiet.
b
d
e Energy
d
a Diet(with%GDDY) Moisture(%) Fat(%) Protein(%) (kJ/g) PRE(%)a ERE(%)b
o
nl
w 0% 69.3 12.3 16.2 8683 31.4 21.5
o
D 0%withMycofixPlus 69.3 12.5 16.1 8876 33.6 24.1
15% 70.2 11.4 16.1 8666 35.6 22.9
15%withMycofixPlus 70.0 12.4 16.2 9583 34.3 23.0
30% 69.2 13.2 15.5 8872 27.0 15.8
30%withMycofixPlus 68.0 13.8 15.7 8947 38.5* 27.6
Resultsofstatisticalanalysis
PooledSE 0.8 0.7 0.5 373 2.4 2.7
Pr>F 0.5429 0.2769 08292 0.6150 0.0710 0.1555
ProteinP 0.2370 0.0968 0.4122 0.6935 0.5404 0.8878
MycofixPlusP 0.5321 0.2929 0.8723 0.2385 0.0527 0.0538
Protein × MycofixPlusPc 0.7598 0.8544 0.9327 0.5270 0.0499 0.1214
aProteinretentionefficiency(PRE)=[proteingaininfish(g)/proteinintake(g)]×100
bEnergyretentionefficiency(ERE)=[energygaininfish(g)/energyintake(g)]×100
cAnasterisk(*)indicatesasignificant(P<0.05)effectofMycofixPluswithinagivenGDDYinclusionlevel.
302 HAUPTMANETAL.
deactivator supplementation (P = 0.0499) was found where zearalenone,andfumonsins1and2,respectively.Thelowmy-
PREwasincreasedbymycotoxindeactivatorsupplementation cotoxin levels and short-term nature of the feeding trial may
infishfedthe30%GDDYdiet(Table3).Additionally,nearsig- have limited our ability to detect detrimental effects. Lending
nificanteffectsofmycotoxindeactivatorsupplementationwere supportforthisargumentisthateventhoughtherewasnosta-
observedforbothPRE(P=0.0527)andERE(P=0.0538). tisticalsignificanceofincludingMycofixPlus,wedidobservea
significantbenefitofMycofixPlusonimprovingPREinRain-
bow Trout fed the 30% GDDY. Similarly, trends were found
DISCUSSION thatsupportedpositive,thoughminor,effectsofMycofixPluson
Althoughlimitedresearchhasinvestigatedthepotentialim- RainbowTroutPRE,ERE,andweightgain.Giventheincreased
portance or confounding effects of low-level mycotoxin con- feed intake and similar whole-body proximate composition in
tamination in evaluations of alternative ingredients, the use of RainbowTroutfed30%GDDY,thesetrendsmayindicateslight
mycotoxindeactivatorproductsincontaminatedfishfeedscan improvementsinnutrientabsorptionandmetabolismduetoMy-
increase growth performance (Abdelaziz et al. 2010; Agouz cofixPlusinclusion.However,additionalresearchisnecessary
andAnwer2011).AgouzandAnwer(2011)reportedincreases tosubstantiatethistheory.
in Common Carp growth rate and survivability when using a Alternatively,onlydeoxynivalenolat0.2ppmapproachedthe
probiotic (Biogen) or a binder (Myco-Ad) in the mycotoxin- 0.5-ppm level shown to be detrimental by Hooft et al. (2010).
4
1 contaminated diets containing 22 ppb aflatoxin and 15 ppb Thus,onlyatrendinthebenefitofmycotoxindeactivatorinclu-
0
r 2 ochratoxin. Higher survivability, better growth, and feed effi- sion could also simply indicate that these levels and combina-
e
b ciencywerealsoreportedbyAbdelazizetal.(2010)whenNile tionsofmyctoxinsdonotnegativelyimpactgrowthperformance
m
e Tilapia were fed diets containing 22 ppb aflatoxin and 15 ppb ofRainbowTroutanddonotlikelyexplainthedecreasedgrowth
v
o ochratoxinwhenclaywasusedasamycotoxinbindercompared performanceoffishfedthe30%GDDYdiet.
N
7 withthecontroldietwithoutabinder.Resultsfromthecurrent ResultsfromthisstudyregardingtheupperlimitofGDDY
1
3 trialdonotagreewithAgouzandAnwer(2011)norwithAbde- asadietaryproteinsourceforfishwithoutaffectinggrowtheffi-
4
7: lazizetal.(2010)whobothfoundsubstantialincreasesinfish ciencyaresimilartothosepreviouslyreportedbyourlaboratory
1
at performancewhenmycotoxinbinderproductswereincludedin (Hauptman2012)andbyGauseandTrushenski(2011a,2011b).
] mycotoxin-contaminated feeds. Possible reasons for these dif- These levels are slightly lower than those previously reported
s
rie feringresultslikelyincludethedifferencesintypesandlevelsof foryeastinclusioninRainbowTroutdiets(Rumseyetal.1991a;
e
h mycotoxins examined and the different mycotoxin deactivator Martin et al. 1993; Gu¨roy et al. 2012). Rumsey et al. (1991a)
s
Fi productsused. foundthatbrewer’sdriedyeastcouldbeincludedatupto25%
f
O ThemycotoxinspresentintheGDDYsampleusedinthecur- ofthetotaldietwithoutaffectingweightgainandFCR.Goddard
nt rentstudywereochratoxinA,deoxynivalenol,zearalenone,fu- etal.(1999)reportedthatinclusionof35%yeastdidnotalter
e
m monsinB1,andfumonsinB3;however,noaflatoxinwaspresent. growthperformance.Morerecently,Gu¨royetal.(2012)reported
rt
a Numerousstudieshaveshownthenegativeeffectsofaflatoxin that dietary inclusion of the commercial yeast product NuPro
p
e
D onfishgrowthandsurvivalwithdetrimentallevelsvaryingsub- atupto30%didnotsignificantlydecreasegrowthperformance
[
y stantially depending on species. In contrast, fewer researchers ofRainbowTrout.Additionalresearchisnecessarytofullyde-
b
d haveexaminedtheeffectsofochratoxinonfishgrowth,andin termine the reasons for the varying results regarding defining
e
d the study by Manning et al. (2003) levels of 2 ppm were nec- upperlevelsofyeastinclusion;however,basaldietcomposition
a
nlo essarytodecreasegrowthofChannelCatfish.Theselevelsare andspecificallyproteinsourcesreplacedbyyeastinclusionare
w approximately 100 times the levels reported in the studies by confoundingfactorsashasbeenpreviouslyreportedbyRumsey
o
D AgouzandAnwer(2011)andAbdelazizetal.(2010).Thus,it etal.(1991b).
is possible that the beneficial effects observed by Agouz and A thorough screening of alternative ingredients for myco-
Anwer(2011)andAbdelazizetal.(2010)wereprimarilydueto toxin is seldom undertaken prior to alternative protein studies
thesuccessfulmatchingofanappropriatemycotoxindeactivator duetothecostsassociatedwithmycotoxinanalyses;however,
modeofactionwiththemycotoxinspresent.Incontrast,inthe inadequate characterization could compromise study results.
currentstudythechosenproduct,MycofixPlus,maynothave Results from the current study suggest there may be minor
beeneffectiveduetosynergisticeffectsofmultiplemycotoxins benefitsofmycotoxindeactivatorsupplementationtoRainbow
presentinthecontaminatedfeedstuff(Schazmayr2004). Troutdietswherelow-levelmycotoxincontaminationisknown
Additionally,eventhoughinthecurrentstudymultiplemy- ormaybesuspected.However,overallweightgainwasreduced
cotoxins were present, all levels were lower than those pre- whenfishwerefedhigherlevelsofGDDYsuggestingthatthere
viously reported to decrease fish growth (Lumlertdacha et al. are other factors limiting its use, as high inclusion levels and
1995;Manningetal.2003;Pepeljnjaketal.2003;Hooftetal. low-levelmycotoxincontaminationdonotexplainthesereduc-
2010).Estimatedmycotoxinlevelsbasedonthe30%inclusion tions. Additional research is needed to identify these factors
level of GDDY in the current study are 0.3 ppb, 0.2 ppm, 39 andfurtherrefineGDDYinclusionlevelsindietsforRainbow
ppb,0.06ppm,and0.03ppmforochratoxinA,deoxynivalenol, Trout.
MYCOTOXINDEACTIVATORTOIMPROVERAINBOWTROUTGROWTH 303
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Gaylord, T. G., F. T. Barrows, and S. D. Rawles. 2010. Apparent amino
The authors thank Jason Frost and Christopher Hooley for acidavailabilityfromfeedstuffsinextrudeddietsforRainbowTrout,On-
corhynchusmykiss.AquacultureNutrition16:400–406.
theirassistancewithdietmanufacturingandfishsampling.Men-
Goddard,J.S.,A.M.Martin,andG.Deveau.1999.Evaluationofyeastbiomass
tion of trade names or commercial products in this article is
(Candidautilis)inapracticaldietforRainbowTrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss).
solelyforthepurposeofprovidingspecificinformationanddoes SultanQuaboosUniversityJournalforScientificResearch-AgriculturalSci-
notimplyrecommendationorendorsementbytheauthors,the ences4(1):47–52.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Gu¨roy,D.,A.A.Tekinay,andS.J.Davies.2012.Useoforganicallycertified
yeastinthedietofjuvenileRainbowTrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss):growth
Service.
performance,nutrientutilization,andfattyacidcomposition.IsraeliJournal
ofAquaculture64:53–61.
Hauptman, B. H. 2012. Evaluation of the nutritional value of ethanol
REFERENCES yeast in practical-type diets as an alternative protein source for Rainbow
Abdelaziz M., W. Anwer, and A. H. Abdelrazek. 2010. Field study on the Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Master’s thesis. Montana State University,
mycotoxinbindingeffectsofclayinOreochromisniloticusfeedsandtheir Bozeman.
impactsontheperformanceaswellasthehealthstatusthroughouttheculture Hooft,J.M.,A.Elmor,P.Encarnacao,andD.P.Bureau.2010.RainbowTrout
season.InterdisciplinaryBioCentral2:1–6. (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is extremely sensitive to the feed-borne fusarium
Agouz,H.M,andW.Anwer.2011.EffectofBiogen(cid:2)R andMyco-Ad(cid:2)R onthe mycotoxindeoxynivalenol(DON).Aquaculture311:224–232.
4 growthperformanceofCommonCarp(Cyprinuscarpio)fedamycotoxin Hussein, H. S., and J. M. Brasel. 2001. Toxicity, metabolism and impact of
1 contaminatedaquafeed.JournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences6:334– mycotoxinsonhumansandanimals.Toxicology167:101–134.
0
2 345. Jantrarotai, W., and T. L. Lovell. 1990a. Subcronic toxicity of dietary afla-
ber Aksnes,A.,H.Mundheim,J.Toppe,andS.Albrektsen.2007.Theeffectof toxin B1 to Channel Catfish. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 2:248–
m dietaryhydroxyprolinesupplementationonsalmon(Salmosalar)fedhigh 254.
ve plantproteindiets.Aquaculture275:242–249. Jantrarotai,W.,andT.L.Lovell.1990b.Acuteandsubcronictoxicityofcyclop-
No AOAC(AssociationofOfficialAnalyticalChemists).1995.Officialmethodsof iazonicacidtoChannelCatfish.JournalofAquaticAnimalHealth2:255–
7 analysis.AOAC,Arlington,Virginia. 260.
3 1 AshleyL.M.,andJ.E.Halver.1963.MultiplemetastasisofRainbowTrout Jantrarotai,W.,T.L.Lovell,andJ.M.Grizzle.1990.Acutetoxicityofaflatoxin
17:4 Bahrreopwatso,mFa..TT.,raTn.saGc.tiGonasyloofrdth,eWA.mMer.icSaenalFeyis,hMeri.eJs.SHoacaiest,ya9n2d:3R6.5–L3.7S1t.roup. LuBm1letrotdCahcahnan,Sel.,CRa.tTfi.sLh.oJvoeullr,nRa.lAof.SAhqeulbatyi,cSA.Dni.mLaelnHz,eaanltdhB2.:W23.7K–e2m47p.painen.
at 2008a.Processingsoybeanmealforbiodieselproduction;effectofanew 1995.Growth,hematology,andhistopathologyofChannelCatfish(Ictalurus
s] processingmethodongrowthperformanceofRainbowTrout,Oncorhynchus punctatus),fedtoxinsfromFusariummoniliforme.Aquaculture130:201–
rie mykiss.Aquaculture283:143–147. 218.
he Barrows,F.T.,T.G.Gaylord,W.M.Sealey,L.Porter,andC.E.Smith.2010. Manning,B.B.,R.M.Ulloa,M.H.Li,E.H.Robinson,andG.E.Rottinghaus.
Fis Supplementation of plant-based diets for Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus 2003. Ochratoxin A fed to Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) causes
f mykiss) with macro-minerals and inositol. Aquaculture Nutrition 16:654– reducedgrowthandlesionsofhepatopancreatictissue.Aquaculture219:739–
O
ent Ba6rr6o1w.s, F. T., T. G. Gaylord, W. M. Sealey, C. E. Smith, and L. Porter. Ma7r5ti0n.,A.M.,S.Goddard,andP.Bemistera.1993.ProductionofCandidautilis
m 2008b.Theeffectofvitaminpremixinextrudedplantbasedandfishmeal biomassasaquaculturefeed.JournaloftheScienceofFoodandAgriculture
art baseddietsongrowthefficiencyandhealthofRainbowTrout,Oncorhynchus 61:363–370.
p
e mykiss.Aquaculture283:148–155. NRC(NationalResearchCouncil).1993.Nutrientrequirementsoffish.National
D
[ CAST(CouncilforAgriculturalScienceandTechnology).2003.Mycotoxins: AcademiesPress,Washington,D.C.
by risks in plant animal and human systems. CAST, Task Force Report 139, NRC(NationalResearchCouncil).2011.Nutrientrequirementsoffish.National
d Ames,Iowa. AcademiesPress,Washington,D.C.
e
d Cheng, Z. J., R. W. Hardy, and J. L. Usry. 2003. Effects of lysine supple- Pepeljnjak,S.,Z.Petrinec,S.Kovacic,andM.Segvic.2003.Screeningtoxicity
a
o mentationinplantprotein-baseddietsontheperformanceofRainbowTrout studyinyoungcarp(Cyprinuscarpio)onfeedamendedwithfumonisinB1.
wnl (Onchorhynchusmykiss)andapparentdigestibilitycoefficientsofnutrients. Mycopathologia156:139–145.
o Aquaculture215:255–265. RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2011. Ethanol industry outlook. RFA,
D
Gatlin,D.M.,F.T.Barrows,D.Bellis,P.Brown,J.Campen,K.Dabrowski, Washington, D.C. Available: http://ethanolrfa.org/pages/annual-industry-
T.G.Gaylord,R.W.Hardy,E.Herman,G.Hu,A.Krogdahl,R.Nelson,K. outlook.(May2014).
Overturf,M.Rust,W.Sealey,D.Skonberg,E.Souza,D.Stone,R.Wilson, Rumsey,G.L.,S.G.Hughes,R.R.Smith,J.E.Kinsella,andK.J.Shetty.
andE.Wurtele.2007.Expandingtheutilizationofsustainableplantproducts 1991a.Digestibilityandenergyvaluesofintact,disruptedandextractsfrom
inaquafeeds–areview.AquacultureResearch38:551–579. brewer’sdriedyeastfedtoRainbowTrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss).Animal
Gause, B., and J. Trushenski. 2011a. Replacement of fish meal with EY in FeedScienceandTechnology33:185–193.
thedietsofsunshinebass.NorthAmericanJournalofAquaculture73:97– Rumsey,G.L.,J.E.Kinsella,K.J.Shetty,andS.G.Hughes.1991b.Effectof
103. highdietraryconcentrationsofbrewer’sdriedyeastongrowthperformance
Gause,B.,andJ.Trushenski.2011b.Productionperformanceandstresstoler- and liver uricase in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Animal Feed
anceofsunshinebassraisedonreducedfishmealfeedscontainingEY.North ScienceandTechnology33:177–183.
AmericanJournalofAquaculture73:168–175. Schazmayr,G.2004.Typesandcharacteristicsofmycotoxinandthecounter-
Gaylord, T. G., andF. T. Barrows. 2009.Multiple amino acid supplementa- measures.Damageofdomesticanimalsduetothemycotoxinoffeedandits
tionstoreducedietaryproteininplant-basedRainbowTrout,Oncorhynchus prevention.SustainableLivestockProductionandHumanWelfare58:1087–
mykiss,feeds.Aquaculture287:180–184. 1092.
Gaylord,T.G.,F.T.Barrows,andS.D.Rawles.2008.Apparentdigestibility Sealey,W.M.,F.T.Barrows,C.E.Smith,andR.W.Hardy.2010.Dietary
ofgrossnutrientsfromfeedstuffsinextrudedfeeddietsforRainbowTrout, supplementationstrategiestoimproveperformanceofRainbowTroutOn-
Oncorhynchus mykiss. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 39:827– corhynchusmykissfedplant-baseddiets.BulletinoftheFisheriesResearch
834. AgencyofJapan31:15–23.
304 HAUPTMANETAL.
Sealey, W. M., F. T. Barrows, C. E. Smith, K. Overturf, and S. E. LaPatra. plantproteindietforRainbowTrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss).Aquaculture
2009.Soybeanlevelandprobioticsinfirstfeedingfrydietsaltertheabilityof 338:72–81.
RainbowTroutOncorhynchusmyskisstoutilizehighlevelsofsoybeanmeal Tuan,N.A.,B.B.Manning,R.T.Lovell,andG.E.Rottinghaus.2003.Re-
duringgrow-out.Aquaculture293:195–203. sponses of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fed diets containing dif-
Sealey,W.M.,F.T.Barrows,C.E.Smith,J.M.Wacyk,M.S.Powell,R.W. ferent concentrations of moniliformin of fumonisin B1. Aquaculture 217:
Hardy,andE.A.Shelden.2013.HeatshockproteinregulationinRainbow 515–528.
Trout,Oncorhynchusmykiss,isalteredbydietarysoybeanmealinclusionand Whitlow, L. W., and W. M. Hagler. 2004. Mycotoxins in feeds. Feedstuffs
anti-phospholipaseA2 antibody.JournaloftheWorldAquacultureSociety 76:66–76.
44:655–668. Whitlow,L.W.,W.M.Hagler,andB.A.Hopkins.1998.Mycotoxinoccurrence
Snyder,G.S.,T.G.Gaylord,F.T.Barrows,K.Overturf,K.D.Cain,R.A. infarmersubmittedsamplesofNorthCarolinafeedstuffs:1989–1997.Journal
Hill,andR.W.Hardy.2012.Effectsofcarnosinesupplementationtoanall- ofDairyScience81:1189.
4
1
0
2
r
e
b
m
e
v
o
N
7
1
3
4
7:
1
at
]
s
e
ri
e
h
s
Fi
f
O
nt
e
m
rt
a
p
e
D
[
y
b
d
e
d
a
o
nl
w
o
D
This article was downloaded by: [Department Of Fisheries]
On: 17 November 2014, At: 17:44
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
North American Journal of Aquaculture
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/unaj20
An Isolated Picochlorum Species for Aquaculture, Food,
and Biofuel
Duc Trana, Mario Giordanob, Clifford Louimec, Ngan Trana, Trung Voa, Du Nguyend & Tung
Hoanga
a School of Biotechnology, International University, Ho Chi Minh City National University,
Vietnam
b Dipartimento di Scienze Della Vita e Dell’Ambiente, Università Politecnica Delle Marche,
Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy
c College of Natural Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan 00937, Puerto Rico
d Central Analytical Laboratory, University of Science, Ho Chi Minh City National University,
Vietnam
Published online: 23 Jul 2014.
To cite this article: Duc Tran, Mario Giordano, Clifford Louime, Ngan Tran, Trung Vo, Du Nguyen & Tung Hoang (2014) An
Isolated Picochlorum Species for Aquaculture, Food, and Biofuel, North American Journal of Aquaculture, 76:4, 305-311, DOI:
10.1080/15222055.2014.911226
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15222055.2014.911226
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions