Next Article in Journal
Understanding the Abandonment of Aquaculturists: A Case in the Amazon (North of Brazil)
Previous Article in Journal
Building the Social Acceptability of Aquaculture through a Participatory Approach: An Experiment Conducted in Monastir Bay, Tunisia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Aquaculture Journal
Volume 4
Issue 3
10.3390/aquacj4030010
aquacj-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Protein Requirements of Fattening Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Fed Fish Meal-Free Diets

by
Jailson Novodworski
1,
Émerson José Alves Matos
1,
Rafaela Mocochinski Gonçalves
1,
Robie Allan Bombardelli
2 and
Fábio Meurer
1,*
1
Graduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba 80060-140, Brazil
2
Center for Engineering and Exact Sciences, State University of West Paraná, Toledo 85819-110, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Aquac. J. 2024, 4(3), 135-147; https://doi.org/10.3390/aquacj4030010
Submission received: 15 May 2024 / Revised: 11 July 2024 / Accepted: 17 July 2024 / Published: 23 July 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to determine the protein requirements of the fattening phase for Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fed fish meal-free diets. A total of 75 Nile tilapia were maintained in a water recirculation system, and five isoenergetic diets were formulated with increasing protein levels encompassing three repetitions each. The findings revealed that protein levels significantly affected (p < 0.05) certain Nile tilapia performance, yield, and composition parameters. The determined parameter values clearly indicated that Nile tilapia can be fed fish meal-free soybean meal and corn-based diets. Furthermore, the metabolic plasticity of this species concerning dietary protein concentrations was also demonstrated, with adequate performance results achieved in treatments containing from 267 to 294 g/kg digestible protein (DP), or 298 to 327 g/kg crude protein (CP), where the balance between essential and non-essential amino acids and energy resulted in adequate performance correlated to satisfactory feed conversion values and filet yields and composition. A DP concentration of 267 g/kg (298 g/kg CP) is recommended when offering corn and soybean meal-based diets during the Nile tilapia fattening phase to fish weighing between 400 and 700 g.

1. Introduction

Aquaculture plays a fundamental role in ensuring global food security and is the food production sector that has expanded the most in the last 50 years, with total fish production growth estimates of over 15% by 2030 [1]. In this sense, Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) stands out as the third most cultivated species, contributing to 9% of the 2020 global production [2]. About 92% of the worldwide production of this species employs commercial feed [3], representing around 70% of total production costs [4].
Among basic tilapia feed nutrients, protein stands out as a fundamental dietary component, significantly affecting Nile tilapia performance [5]. Inadequate digestible protein (DP) levels can result in several issues, such as reduced feed consumption, consequently compromising fish growth [6].
Protein is an essential component in the construction and maintenance of cellular structures, tissues, and organs, playing a crucial role in metabolic processes [7]. When ingested, proteins undergo a hydrolysis process [8], and part of the derived amino acids are absorbed, following several possible metabolic pathways. The nitrogen resulting from oxidative amino acid processes is then excreted into the water in the form of ammonia (NH3) [9], which can cause significant environmental impacts, contributing to issues such as eutrophication and other negative water quality effects [10,11]. Therefore, fish diet formulations should be adjusted to meet the specific needs of each species, ensuring an adequate nutrient balance to optimize animal growth and health and minimize negative environmental impacts.
Recently, several studies have determined the optimal levels of dietary protein for Nile tilapia at different stages of development: 318 ± 6.50 g/kg [12,13,14,15,16], 292 ± 18.19 g/kg [17,18,19,20,21], and 255 ± 16.5 g/kg [6,22,23] for tilapia with an average final weight of 12 ± 2.5 g, 57 ± 2.39 g, and 415 ± 3.37 g, respectively. These requirements are lower than those presented in the NRC (2011) [7], where fish with an average weight of less than 20 g, from 20 to 200 g, and from 200 to 600 g have a requirement of 400, 340, and 300 g/kg of crude protein, respectively. In this sense, it is worth noting that the evolution of the tilapia production chain, combined with the use of new strains with higher productivity, demands new studies to better meet the nutritional requirements of this species. In addition, there is a lack of studies on protein requirements in the fattening phase for fish with an average weight above 500 g [24].
To meet these nutritional requirements, fish meal has been recognized as the most appropriate protein source option for this species, due to its high nutritional value and palatability [25]. However, in addition to its production having plateaued for some years, reduced fish meal availability was noted between 2018 and 2020, contradicting market demands. This decline, driven by rapid aquaculture production growth and use by other animals, has led to significant fish meal price increases [2].
In this sense, plant protein sources have emerged as a promising alternative, capable of partially or fully replacing fish meal in Nile tilapia diets. This approach not only provides satisfactory results in terms of performance and immune response enhancement but also contributes to reduced total feed costs [26].
In general, studies investigating the protein needs of tilapia employing fish meal-free feed [6,27,28,29,30,31] have reported positive results compared to other studies assessing similar developmental stages but employing diets containing animal ingredients. The developmental stage of the fish directly influences their protein requirement, with a tendency for this requirement to decrease with the increasing weight and age of the fish [7,8,32,33]. However, when evaluating studies conducted on the protein requirement of Nile tilapia, Meurer et al. (2024) [24] identified that these studies have focused on the early developmental stages of this species, with the few studies conducted during the fattening phase (with a final average weight above 500 g) showing a tendency for an increase in the protein requirement compared to the growth phase of these fish. Additionally, although it has been scientifically proven that it is possible to use fish meal-free feed in Nile tilapia feeding, no study has been conducted on this developmental phase. Therefore, this study aimed to determine Nile tilapia fattening phase protein requirements employing fish meal-free diets.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was carried out at the Aquaculture Technology Laboratory (Lataq) belonging to the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), located at the Advanced Jandaia do Sul Campus (PR, Brazil). The experimental procedure protocol was approved by the UFPR Palotina Sector Ethics Committee on the Use of Animals (Protocol n. 05/2021—CEUA/Palotina).

2.1. Fish Subjects and Experimental Design

The experiment lasted 84 days, beginning at the end of December 2022. A total of 75 adult Nile tilapia (Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia—GIFT lineage) with an average initial weight of 412 ± 8.06 g were acclimatized for 60 days. After this period, the fish were anesthetized by immersion in a 50 mg/L eugenol solution, weighed, and randomly distributed into five treatments encompassing three repetitions each.
A recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) consisting of 15 circular 1000 L tanks installed in a cultivation greenhouse was used. The tanks were connected to a 2000 L mechanical filtration tank and a 30,000 L biofiltration tank. Each 1000 L tank was considered an experimental unit. A water recirculation rate of 12 times a day was maintained in each experimental unit during the experiment. The 1000 L tanks were aerated using a porous hose connected to an air system that was connected, in turn, to a 0.5 hp radial blower, with an individual water inlet and outlet.
All experimental units were equipped with a self-siphoning system at the bottom of the tank, with a centralized slope of 5% and a central outlet for the removal of feces and other waste. The mechanical filtration and biofiltration tanks were siphoned weekly (500 L) to remove residues. The biofiltration tank was partly occupied by Eichornia crassipes, which were removed as necessary, maintaining between 50% and 80% total coverage.

2.2. Experimental Diets and Fish Feed Management

Five experimental fish meal-free diets were formulated, namely isoenergetic, isocalcium, and isophosphoric, mainly composed of soybean and corn meal, and containing increasing DP levels (216, 244, 268, 294 and 316 g/kg) (Table 1). The soybean meal, corn, and experimental diets were analyzed for moisture, crude protein, lipids, and ash content according to the international procedures of AOAC (2005) [34], and gross energy was determined using a calorimetry bomb. The DP and digestible energy (DE) values were determined based on the digestibility coefficients of soybean meal and corn proposed by Boscolo et al. (2002) [35], and the calculated composition of essential amino acids was determined based on the data from Rostagno et al. (2017) [36]. The experimental diets were weighed daily and provided equally to the fish in all experimental units in two daily feedings., one at 8 am and the other at 5 pm.
The fish meal-free diets were prepared by finely grinding soybean meal and corn through a 0.7 mm sieve and subsequently mixing these components with other ingredients, according to each formulation (Table 1), using a mixer with a mixing capacity of 63 L (27.5 rpm, 10-min mixing cycle). The feed processing incorporated 175 g/kg of water, added homogeneously, followed by processing in an extruder (Ex laboratory, Exteec® Máquinas, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil) employing a 3 mm matrix, obtaining 5.5 mm extruded pellets after the drying process. Soybean oil was added by spraying.
The produced feed was dried at 55 °C in an air recirculation oven (MA035/1152, Marconi, SP, Brazil) for 24 h, cooled, and stored under refrigeration. This procedure provided 100% buoyancy extruded pellets, as determined in buoyancy and extruder integrity tests from zero to sixty min.

2.3. Water Quality

The temperature (25.58 ± 1.64 °C) and the dissolved oxygen (6.59 ± 5.06 mg/L) were monitored daily during the experiment, while pH (8.1 ± 0.13) was assessed weekly at 9 am and 5 pm using an Ak88 multiparameter probe (Akso®, São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil).
Water samples were collected from all experimental units on the 40th and 80th day of the experiment for total ammonia (method no. 4500-B), nitrite (method no. 4500-B), and dissolved orthophosphate (PO43−) (method no. 4500-P.E) determinations, according to the APHA (2017) [37].
Table 2 lists the water quality parameter results of the experimental systems during the Nile tilapia fattening phase. The data are categorized into five treatments and encompass several variables. Total ammonia, nitrite, and dissolved orthophosphate (PO43−) concentrations were not significantly different (p < 0.05) between treatments (Table 2). All physicochemical water parameter values were similar between treatments and within the appropriate standards established in the literature [38].

2.4. Nile Tilapia Performance and Body and Fillet Composition

At the end of the experiment, all fish were fasted for 24 h, anesthetized by immersion in a 120 mg/L eugenol solution, counted, and weighed. Weight gain (WG), daily weight gain (DWG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), specific growth rate (SGR), and protein efficiency rate (PER) were calculated. Six fish per treatment (two individuals per experimental unit chosen at random) were dissected to determine carcass yield (CY), fillet yield (FY), the hepatosomatic index (HSI), visceral fat (VF), and the viscerosomatic index (VSI).
One whole fish, two carcasses, and the fillets of two other fish were randomly chosen from each experimental unit to determine bromatological compositions. All analyses were carried out according to the AOAC methodologies (2005) [34] for dry matter (DM; method no. 930.15), crude protein (CP; method no. 984.13), ether extract (EE; method no. 920.39), and mineral matter (MM; method no. 924.05). The respective values of each parameter were then determined for whole fish, carcasses (fish containing no viscera), and fillets.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

The obtained data were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA). When a significant effect (p ≤ 0.05) was identified, the Tukey test was applied to discriminate the means. A regression analysis was also performed to determine which model best fit the data. The data were adjusted using the combination of linear-plateau regression (broken-line) and quadratic polynomial regression models when the regression models were significant or presented a high coefficient of determination (R2 > 70). This adjustment was performed to assess the optimal protein requirement, with the first point defined by the intersection of the quadratic regression line when crossing the plateau of the broken line, according to the model described by [39]. Statistical analyses were performed with the RStudio 4.3.1 software [40].

3. Results

3.1. Zootechnical Performance

The zootechnical performance results of Nile tilapia fed fish meal-free diets containing increasing protein levels during the fattening phase are presented in Table 3. The offered protein levels significantly influenced (p < 0.05) WG, DWG, SGR, FCR, and PER. Better WG, DWG and SGR results were observed in the T27 and T29 treatments. The worst result was noted for the T22 diet, and the T24 and T32 diets did not differ from each other or from the other treatments. A linear PER reduction was observed ( y = 3.55 − 0.0057 x ,   R 2 = 0.94 ) due to increasing dietary protein levels.
The FCR (Figure 1) exhibited a quadratic effect depending on the dietary protein increase, with maximum points at 285.76 g/kg DP (Figure 1a) and 319.07 g/kg CP (Figure 1b). When analyzing the FCR using the combination of linear-plateau regression (broken-line) and quadratic polynomial regression models, the intercept points of the lines indicate values of 267.36 g/kg DP and 298.75 g/kg CP.

3.2. Body Performance

Nile tilapia body yield parameters in fish offered fish meal-free diets containing increasing protein levels in the fattening phase are presented in Table 4. The CY of Nile tilapia was significantly influenced (p < 0.05) by dietary protein levels, with the best performance obtained in T29 and the worst, in T22. No difference between the other treatments were observed, and no significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed for HSI, VF, VSI, TL, SL and TH.
The FY (Figure 2) exhibited a quadratic effect depending on the dietary protein increase, with a maximum value of 281.45 g/kg PD and 314.19 CP. When analyzing the same parameter using a combination of linear-plateau regression (broken-line) and quadratic polynomial regression models, the intercept points of the lines indicated a value of 256.78 g/kg DP and 286.20 g/kg CP (Figure 2a,b).

3.3. Bromatological Composition

Table 5 presents the bromatological moisture, crude protein, mineral matter, and ether extract values of whole Nile tilapia, carcasses, and fillets offered increasing protein levels. A linear decrease (p < 0.05) was observed for the carcass ether extract parameter ( y = 155 − 2281 x ,   R 2 = 0.60 ) with increasing protein levels. The same parameter evaluated by the means test revealed that the highest value was obtained in T22 and the lowest value was obtained in T32. The other treatments did not differ from each other, and the other bromatological parameters were not influenced (p > 0.05) by the dietary treatments.

4. Discussion

Proteins, alongside peptides, are composed of amino acids. Thus, protein requirements, whether crude or digestible, should be ultimately translated in terms of amino acid requirements. Amino acids can be essential or non-essential, with their essentiality correlated to the possibility of a given individual’s capacity to synthesize these elements in adequate amounts, which may vary according to growth phase or a specific momentary physiological situation. The importance of assessing protein levels should, thus, be verified, as amino acid requirements should be the preferred parameters. However, protein assessments are made easier by the fact that their analyses are much cheaper than amino acid assessments and can be performed easily in feed mills. Furthermore, specifically concerning this study, soybean meal composition values vary only slightly [36]. Thus, when compared to other ingredients, feeds formulated with these ingredients allow for adequate indirect amino acid-level estimates.
Nile tilapia performance is directly influenced by dietary protein levels, which are, in turn, associated with several biochemical and physiological processes that directly affect fish growth, development, and health. Proteins play crucial roles in tissue synthesis, metabolic regulation, immune responses, and other vital fish organism functions [41]. Therefore, if fish are offered inadequate dietary protein amounts or imbalanced essential amino acids, protein synthesis can be compromised, negatively affecting performance indices [7,8,42]. This was evidenced herein by the data analysis according to the Tukey test or the linear-plateau (broken-line) and quadratic polynomial regression models (Table 3, Figure 1 and Figure 2), which revealed that both the lowest and the highest protein levels were associated with Nile tilapia performance declines. This non-linear response highlights the need for precise dietary formulations, highlighting that adequate protein levels are essential to optimize Nile tilapia growth and body composition. This, in turn, suggests an optimized Nile tilapia response to a specific DP concentration, indicating the importance of adequate diet formulations to maximize fish growth rates during the fattening phase.
As stated previously, our findings indicate that varying the dietary protein concentrations significantly influences Nile tilapia performance indices (Table 3). The T27 treatment resulted in the highest values for several of the assessed variables. These results are in line with previous studies indicating tilapia sensitivity to diet composition variations, especially concerning DP [22,29,31,43,44,45].
The relationship between the WG, SGR, and FCR is complex and interdependent. A direct and proportional relationship was observed between the SGR and FCR, where better results in these indices resulted in a proportional increase in the WG in relation to the initial weight. This study demonstrated that although there were no significant differences in protein levels between the T24 and T32 treatments, better WG and SGR were observed in the T27 treatment, followed by a decline from the T29 treatment. In the same way, the best FCR indices were provided by T27, with a worsening of higher protein levels. This trend was corroborated by Liu et al. (2017) [46], who, when evaluating Nile tilapia with a final weight average of 550 g, determined 293.1 g/kg of CP for the maximum WG, noting a reduction after this level. Similarly, Carneiro et al. (2020) [6] observed the best WG and SGR in fish fed 240 g/kg of DP, significantly influencing the WG (p < 0.05) and the efficiency of DP utilization.
The increase in protein levels resulted in a decrease in the PER (Table 3), reflecting the efficiency of converting the protein consumed into body weight gain. Additional studies [31,43,46,47,48,49] support this observation, suggesting that isoenergetic diets with high protein levels use protein as an energy source, justifying the linear reduction in the PER.
The FCR is a crucial parameter, correlating the WG and feed intake, and is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of the diet. Based on the quadratic polynomial model, the best FCR was estimated at 1.82, corresponding to a requirement of 285.76 g/kg DP (Figure 1a). The combined approach of the broken line and quadratic polynomial models is preferable for a more accurate analysis of protein requirements, as suggested by Lamberson and Firman (2002) [50] and Sakomura and Rostagno (2016) [39]. Thus, DP requirements ranging from 267.36 to 304.20 g/kg were determined, indicating that DP levels outside this range negatively impact the FCR. Insufficient protein in the diet compromises growth [8], while excess protein increases metabolic costs [51], contributing to environmental pollution due to excess nitrogen excreted [9], in addition to increasing the cost of the diet, since protein is the ingredient with the greatest economic value [5].
The literature indicates that the protein requirement of fish is influenced by the growth stage, being higher in the initial phase due to the greater metabolic intake [7,8,32,33,52,53]. Studies with Nile tilapia at similar stages of development indicate that the FCR of this study is slightly above the values found in the literature, despite presenting a lower protein requirement [22,54,55,56]. This variation can be attributed to the initial weight of the fish in the comparative studies. For example, Green et al. (2019) [22] determined a requirement of 277 g/kg DP with an FCR of 1.40 in a study with tilapia ranging from 32 to 545 g. Fernandes Junior et al. (2016) [55] estimated a requirement of 289 g/kg DP for an FCR of 1.45 in fish from 148 to 800 g, while Costa et al. (2009) [54], working with tilapia from 80 to 1000 g, found a protein requirement of 320 g/kg CP for an FCR of 1.63. On the other hand, Koch et al. (2017) [57], when evaluating tilapia from 450 to 800 g, observed an FCR of 1.72 with a requirement of 320 g/kg PD
Concerning CY (Table 4), treatment T29 presented higher values than the other treatments. This finding is similar to that observed by Youssef et al. (2023) [58], who reported the highest CY in fish (7 to 45 g) fed a diet containing 280 g/kg CP. Similarly, Furuya et al. (2005) [59], when evaluating the impacts of reducing protein levels in Nile tilapia diets (5 to 125 g) through the concept of ideal protein, observed a quadratic effect on CY, with the maximum estimated point in fish fed diets with 277 g/kg of DP. This factor may be related to a better amino acid balance in these diets, which can optimize the utilization of the nitrogen fraction by fish, improving efficiency in body protein synthesis. This, in turn, contributes to better muscle growth and a higher carcass yield [59,60].
Another important parameter comprises FY (Figure 2), as the fillet is the most noble Nile tilapia product. Herein, the best DP value was determined as 256.78 g/kg according to the broken-line analysis. Fernandes Junior et al. (2016) [55] emphasized the importance of cost-benefit analyses and encouraged a choice of ideal protein levels based on the desired final Nile tilapia product. These authors evaluated five DP (240, 260, 280, 300, and 320 g/kg DP) and two digestible energy (DE) (13.4 and 14.65 MJ DE kg−1 diet) levels, reporting the highest profitability at 300 g/kg DP/13.40 MJ kg−1 when aiming at fillet production. In contrast, [29] reported fillet yields for Nile tilapia weighing from 30 g to 130 g as varying according to weight, with heavier fish resulting in greater fillet yields.
Higher protein levels did not influence either the HSI, which may be indicative of hepatic glycogen synthesis and reserves, or the VF, indicative of lipid synthesis and reserves. Both parameters result in excess dietary energy or nutritional imbalances. These findings are similar to those reported by Carneiro et al. (2020) [6], who also assessed Nile tilapia fish meal-free diets and observed no statistical differences for the HSI and VF concerning different protein levels.
The VSI also was not affected by the different DP treatments, although Youssef et al. (2023) [58] point out that reducing DP levels results in higher HSI and VSI values, due to increased starch levels, which may be deposited in the liver and viscera as fat. The TL, SL and TH morphometric measurements (Table 4) also were not influenced by the treatments. Such values are critical, as morphometric indices favor the industrial yield of tilapia fillets [61].
Dietary protein quantity and quality directly affect the body’s ability to synthesize new proteins, including fish muscle proteins. A diet containing limited protein levels may restrict the availability of essential amino acids required for adequate protein synthesis [62,63]. Thus, the increased body protein deposition reported by several studies [6,18,45,46,64,65] may be associated with an increased protein synthesis capacity.
In the present study, composition in terms of moisture, protein, and mineral matter in whole Nile tilapia, carcasses, or fillets (Table 5) was not influenced by the DP treatments, corroborating previous studies [19,22,23,66]. A linear reduction was, however, observed with increasing dietary DP levels, corroborating previous studies identifying higher lipid contents in response to reduced DP levels [22,48,67]. This may be associated with the possible conversion of excess carbohydrates, particularly glucose, into lipids through the lipogenesis metabolic process [68].
The results of the present study on the protein requirement of tilapia in the fattening phase with fish meal-free diets are pioneering, as identified by Meurer et al. (2024) [24]. However, for younger stages, there is some divergence in the literature between studies that used or did not use corn soybean meal-based diets. Studies on fingerlings (0.5 to 25 g) have reported a requirement of 319 ± 5.06 g/kg CP in recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) and 340 ± 10.15 g/kg CP in excavated tanks or net tanks [24]. Bomfim et al. (2008) [28] and Furuya et al. (2000) [27] determined a requirement of 280 and 320 g/kg CP in RAS systems and excavated tanks, respectively, in the fingerling phase, but using fish meal-free diets. Regarding the juvenile phase (25 to 200 g), while the protein requirement determined in the RAS system was 300 g/kg DP [69], Carneiro et al. (2017) [29], with fish meal-free diets, determined a requirement of 283 g/kg. In the growth phase (200 to 500 g), the protein requirement of 245 g/kg DP determined in the RAS system [43] was similar to the requirement of 240 g/kg DP [6] and 243 g/kg DP [31], determined with fish meal-free diets in RAS and net tank systems, respectively. These results show that the use of ingredients with different nutritional profiles, such as soybean meal and fishmeal, provides a distinct protein composition in the diets, which can influence the protein requirement of the animals.
According to the parameters evaluated herein, Nile tilapia can indeed be fed a soybean- and corn meal-based fish meal-free diet. The species’ metabolic plasticity concerning dietary protein concentrations was also verified, with adequate performance results noted for DP treatments containing 268 to 294 g/kg, or 298 to 327 g/kg CP. In this sense, the balance between essential and non-essential amino acids and energy results in adequate Nile tilapia performance correlated to good feed conversion values, fillet yields, and composition.

5. Conclusions

A DP concentration of 267 g/kg (298 g/kg CP) is recommended for Nile tilapia that are fed a corn soybean meal-based diet and that weigh between 400 and 700 g in the fattening phase.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.N. and F.M.; methodology, J.N. and F.M.; validation, J.N., É.J.A.M. and F.M.; formal analysis, J.N., É.J.A.M. and R.M.G.; investigation, J.N.; resources, F.M.; data curation, J.N.; writing—original draft preparation, J.N. and É.J.A.M.; writing—review and editing, J.N., R.A.B. and F.M.; supervision, F.M.; project administration, F.M.; funding acquisition, F.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was partially sponsored by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), with grant number 304432/2021-0.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The experimental procedure protocol was approved by the UFPR Palotina Sector Ethics Committee on the Use of Animals (Protocol n. 05/2021—CEUA/Palotina), approve date 2 May 2021.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture—Sustainability in Action; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; ISBN 978-92-5-132692-3. [Google Scholar]
  2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; ISBN 978-92-5-136364-5. [Google Scholar]
  3. Tacon, A.G.J. Trends in Global Aquaculture and Aquafeed Production: 2000–2017. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2020, 28, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Noskoski, L.E.C.; Durigon, E.G.; Schmidt, M.R.; Christofari, L.F.; Lazzari, R.; Vaz, R.Z. Analysis of Zootechnical and Economic Indicators in Carp and Tilapia Production. Concilium 2023, 23, 507–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Teles, A.O.; Couto, A.; Enes, P.; Peres, H. Dietary Protein Requirements of Fish—A Meta-Analysis. Rev. Aquac. 2020, 12, 1445–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carneiro, W.F.; Colpini, L.M.S.; de Souza, R.C.T.; Bombardelli, R.A.; Balen, R.E.; Meurer, F. Effect of the Digestible Protein-Energy Relationship on the Growth Performance of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Fed Fishmeal-Free Diets. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2020, 262, 114379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. National Research Council. Nutrient Requeriment of Fish; The National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wilson, R.P. Amino Acids and Proteins. In Fish Nutrition, 3rd ed.; Halver, J.E., Hardy, R.W., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 144–175. ISBN 9780080494920. [Google Scholar]
  9. Peres, H.; Oliva-Teles, A. Effect of Dietary Protein and Lipid Level on Metabolic Utilization of Diets by European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) Juveniles. Fish. Physiol. Biochem. 2003, 25, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Macedo, C.F.; Sipuba-Tavare, L.H. Eutrophication and Water Quality in Pisciculture: Consequences and Recommendations. Bol. Inst. Pesca 2010, 36, 149–163. [Google Scholar]
  11. Medeiros, G.O.; Silva, S.W.; Tosta, M.C.R. Water as a Barrier to Semi-Intensive Pisciculture in the State of Espírito Santo, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Meio Ambiente 2022, 10, 259–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Durigon, E.G.; Lazzari, R.; Uczay, J.; Lopes, D.L.d.A.; Jerônimo, G.T.; Sgnaulin, T.; Emerenciano, M.G.C. Biofloc Technology (BFT): Adjusting the Levels of Digestible Protein and Digestible Energy in Diets of Nile Tilapia Juveniles Raised in Brackish Water. Aquac. Fish. 2020, 5, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sgnaulin, T.; Durigon, E.G.; Pinho, S.M.; Jerônimo, G.T.; Lopes, D.L.d.A.; Emerenciano, M.G.C. Nutrition of Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT) in Biofloc Technology System: Optimization of Digestible Protein and Digestible Energy Levels during Nursery Phase. Aquaculture 2020, 521, 734998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Singha, K.P.; Shamna, N.; Sahu, N.P.; Sardar, P.; HariKrishna, V.; Thirunavukkarasar, R.; Kumar, M.; Krishna, G. Feeding Graded Levels of Protein to Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT) Juveniles Reared in Inland Saline Water: Effects on Growth and Gene Expression of IGF I, IGF-IR and IGF-BPI. Aquaculture 2020, 525, 735306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Singha, K.P.; Shamna, N.; Sahu, N.P.; Sardar, P.; Harikrishna, V.; Thirunavukkarasar, R.; Chowdhury, D.K.; Maiti, M.K.; Krishna, G. Optimum Dietary Crude Protein for Culture of Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT), Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758) Juveniles in Low Inland Saline Water: Effects on Growth, Metabolism and Gene Expression. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2021, 271, 114713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Thirunavukkarasar, R.; Kumar, P.; Sardar, P.; Sahu, N.P.; Harikrishna, V.; Singha, K.P.; Shamna, N.; Jacob, J.; Krishna, G. Protein-Sparing Effect of Dietary Lipid: Changes in Growth, Nutrient Utilization, Digestion and IGF-I and IGFBP-I Expression of Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT), Reared in Inland Ground Saline Water. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2022, 284, 115150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hisano, H.; Parisi, J.; Cardoso, I.L.; Ferri, G.H.; Ferreira, P.M.F. Dietary Protein Reduction for Nile Tilapia Fingerlings Reared in Biofloc Technology. J. World Aquac. Soc. 2020, 51, 452–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mohammadi, M.; Sarsangi, A.H.; Rajabipour, F.; Mashaii, N.; Bitaraf, A.; Hafeziyeh, M.; Imani, A. Lipid Utilization, Protein Sparing Effects and Protein Requirement of All Male Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus Linnaeus, 1758) in Underground Brackish Water. Iran. J. Fish. Sci 2020, 19, 1517–1531. [Google Scholar]
  19. Nguyen, L.; Dinh, H.; Davis, D.A. Efficacy of Reduced Protein Diets and the Effects of Indispensable Amino Acid Supplements for Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2020, 268, 114593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Costa, L.S.; Guilherme, H.O.; Bahiense, R.N.; Santos, F.A.C.; Gamarano, P.G.; Olmeda, J.F.L.; Ribeiro, P.A.P.; Luz, R.K. Effect of Protein on the Post-Ingestive Response of Tilapia Fed Encapsulated Diets. Aquaculture 2022, 556, 738289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Eid, A.E.; Ali, B.A.; Aboelyzed, M.; Abdel-Ghany, M.F.; Khames, D.K.; Ahmed, R.A.; Baghdady, E.S.; Abdlrhman, A.M. Effect of Protein Levels on Growth Performance, Feed Utilization and Economic Evaluation of Fingerlings Nile Tilapia Fingerlings under Biofloc System. J. Anim. Poult. Fish. Prod. 2020, 9, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Green, B.W.; Rawles, S.D.; Schrader, K.K.; Gaylord, T.G.; McEntire, M.E. Effects of Dietary Protein Content on Hybrid Tilapia (Oreochromis aureus × O. niloticus) Performance, Common Microbial off-Flavor Compounds, and Water Quality Dynamics in an Outdoor Biofloc Technology Production System. Aquaculture 2019, 503, 571–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kabir, K.A.; Verdegem, M.C.J.; Verreth, J.A.J.; Phillips, M.J.; Schrama, J.W. Effect of Dietary Protein to Energy Ratio, Stocking Density and Feeding Level on Performance of Nile Tilapia in Pond Aquaculture. Aquaculture 2019, 511, 634200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Meurer, F.; Novodworski, J.; Bombardelli, R.A. Protein Requirements in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) during Production and Reproduction Phases. Aquac. Fish. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Trosvik, K.A.; Webster, C.D.; Thompson, K.R.; Metts, L.A.; Gannam, A.; Twibell, R. Effects on Growth Performance and Body Composition in Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, Fry Fed Organic Diets Containing Yeast Extract and Soyabean Meal as a Total Replacement of Fish Meal without Amino Acid Supplementation. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 2013, 29, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Magbanua, T.O.; Ragaza, J.A. Selected Dietary Plant-Based Proteins for Growth and Health Response of Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus. Aquac. Fish. 2022, 9, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Furuya, W.M.; Hayashi, C.; Furuya, V.R.B.; Soares, C.M. Protein Requirements for Reversed Fingerling Nile Tilapia (Oreochromins niloticus). Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2000, 29, 1912–1917. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bomfim, M.A.D.; Lanna, E.A.T.; Donzele, J.L.; Ferreira, A.S.; Ribeiro, F.B.; Takishita, S.S. Methionine plus Cystine Requirement, Based on Ideal Protein Concept, in Diets for Nile Tilapia Fingerlings. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2008, 37, 783–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carneiro, W.F.; Pandini, F.; da Silva, L.C.R.; dos Santos, L.D.; Rossato, K.A.; Meurer, F. Digestible Protein Requirement for Nile Tilapia Fed with Rations Based on Soybean Meal and Corn. Acta Sci. 2017, 39, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. El-Saidy, D.M.S.D.; Gaber, M.M.A. Effect of Dietary Protein Levels and Feeding Rates on Growth Performance, Production Traits and Body Composition of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.) Cultured in Concrete Tanks. Aquac. Res. 2005, 36, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Botaro, D.; Furuya, W.M.; Silva, L.C.R.; dos Santos, L.D.; Silva, T.S.d.C.; dos Santos, V.G. Dietary Protein Reduction Based on Ideal Protein Concept for Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Cultured in Net Pens. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2007, 36, 517–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mjoun, K.; Rosentrater, K.; Brown, M.L. Tilapia: Environmental Biology and Nutritional Requirements. Fact Sheets. Paper 164. Available online: http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/extension_fact/164 (accessed on 17 July 2024).
  33. Torres Novoa, D.M.; Hurtado Nery, V.L. Requerimientos Nutricionales Para Tilapia Del Nilo. Orinoquia 2012, 16, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. AOAC International. Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed.; AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  35. Boscolo, W.R.; Hayashi, C.; Meurer, F. Apparent Digestibility of the Energy and Nutrients of Conventional and Alternatives Foods for Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2002, 31, 539–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rostagno, H.S.; Albino, L.F.T.; Donzele, J.L.; Gomes, P.C.; de Oliveira, R.F.; Lopes, D.C.; Ferreira, A.S.; Barreto, S.L.T.; Euclides, R. Brazilian Tables for Poultry and Swine: Composition of Feedstuffs and Nutritional Requirements, 4th ed.; Departamento de Zootecnia, UFV: Viçosa, Brazil, 2017; ISBN 9788560249725. [Google Scholar]
  37. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 23rd ed.; Baird, R.B., Eaton, A.D., Rice, W.W., Eds.; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sá, M.V.C. Limnocultura: Limnologia Para Aquicultura; Edições UFC: Fortaleza, Brazil, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sakomura, N.K.; Rostagno, H.S. Métodos de Pesquisa Em Nutrição de Monogástricos, 2nd ed.; FUNEP: Jaboticabal, Brazil, 2016; ISBN 978-85-7805-154-9. [Google Scholar]
  40. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  41. Webster, C.D.; Lim, C. Nutrient Requirements and Feeding of Finfish for Aquaculture; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2002; ISBN 9780851995199. [Google Scholar]
  42. Francalossi, D.M.; Cyrino, J.E.P. Nutriaqua: Nutrição e Alimentação de Espécies de Interesse Para a Aquicultura Brasileira; Aquabio: Florianópolis, Brazil, 2013; p. 375. ISBN 978-85-60190-03-4. [Google Scholar]
  43. Righetti, J.S.; Furuya, W.M.; Conejero, C.I.; Graciano, T.S.; Vidal, L.V.O.; Michellato, M. Protein Reduction in Diets for Nile Tilapia by Amino Acids Supplementation Based on the Ideal Protein Concept. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2011, 40, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Huang, D.; Liang, H.; Zhu, J.; Ren, M.; Ge, X. Dietary Protein Modifies Hepatic Glycolipid Metabolism, Intestinal Immune Response, and Resistance to Streptococcus Agalactiae of Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT: Oreochromis niloticus) Exposed to High Temperature. Fishes 2022, 7, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Meurer, F.; Hayashi, C.; Boscolo, W.R.; dos Santos, L.D.; Wolf, L.; Colpini, L.M.S. Digestible Protein Requirements to Juveniles of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in Low Temperature Temperatura. Rev. Científica Produção Anim. 2007, 9, 42, 53–64. [Google Scholar]
  46. Liu, W.; Jiang, M.; Wu, J.P.; Wu, F.; Tian, J.; Yang, C.G.; Wen, H. Dietary Protein Level Affects the Growth Performance of Large Male Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, Reared in Fertilized Freshwater Cages. J. World Aquac. Soc. 2017, 48, 718–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. da Silva, M.A.; de Alvarenga, É.R.; de O Alves, G.F.; Manduca, L.G.; Turra, E.M.; de Brito, T.S.; de Sales, S.C.M.; da Silva Junior, A.F.; Borges, W.J.M.; Teixeira, E.d.A. Crude Protein Levels in Diets for Two Growth Stages of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in a Biofloc System. Aquac. Res. 2018, 49, 2693–2703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Peres, H.; Freitas, J.M.A.; Carvalho, P.L.P.; Furuya, W.M.; Satori, M.M.P.; Oliva-Teles, A.; Pezzato, L.E.; Barros, M.M. Growth Performance and Metabolic Responses of Nile Tilapia Fed Diets with Different Protein to Energy Ratios. Aquaculture 2022, 547, 737493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sweilum, M.A.; Abdella, M.M.; Salah El-Din, S.A. Effect of Dietary Protein-Energy Levels and Fish Initial Sizes on Growth Rate, Development and Production of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus L. Aquac. Res. 2005, 36, 1414–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lamberson, W.R.; Firman, J.D. A Comparison of Quadratic versus Segmented Regression Procedures for Estimating Nutrient Requirements. Poult. Sci. 2002, 81, 481–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Nelson, D.L.; Cox, M.M. Princípios de Bioquímica de Lehninger, 6th ed.; Artmed: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2014; ISBN 9781429234146. [Google Scholar]
  52. Árnason, J.; Björnsdottir, R.; Arnarsson, I.; Árnadottir, G.S.; Thorarensen, H. Protein Requirements of Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua L. Aquac. Res. 2010, 41, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Vielma Rondon, R.; Ovalles Duran, J.; León Leal, A.; Medina, A. Valor Nutritivo de La Harina de Lombriz (Eisenia Foetida) Como Fuente de Aminoácidos y Su Estimación Cuantitativa Mediante Cromatografía En Fase Reversa (HPLC) y Derivatización Precolumna Con o-Ftalaldehído (OPA). Ars. Pharm. 2003, 44, 43–58. [Google Scholar]
  54. Costa, L.d.S.; de Melo, F.P.; Caorreia, E.d.S. Effect of Different Feeding Regimes on the Growth of Tilápia Chitralada (Oreochromis niloticus Linnaeus, 1757), Culture in Cages. Bol. Pesqui. Desenvolv. 79/Embrapa Meio Ambiente 2009, 35, 285–294. [Google Scholar]
  55. Fernandes Junior, A.C.; de Carvalho, P.L.P.F.; Pezzato, L.E.; Koch, J.F.A.; Teixeira, C.P.; Cintra, F.T.; Damasceno, F.M.; Amorin, R.L.; Padovani, C.R.; Barros, M.M. The Effect of Digestible Protein to Digestible Energy Ratio and Choline Supplementation on Growth, Hematological Parameters, Liver Steatosis and Size-Sorting Stress Response in Nile Tilapia under Field Condition. Aquaculture 2016, 456, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Koch, J.F.A.; Barros, M.M.; Teixeira, C.P.; Carvalho, P.L.P.F.; Fernandes Junior, A.C.; Cintra, F.T.; Pezzato, L.E. Protein-to-Energy Ratio of 21.43 g MJ−1 Improves Growth Performance of Nile Tilapia at the Final Rearing Stage under Commercially Intensive Rearing Conditions. Aquac. Nutr. 2017, 23, 560–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Koch, J.F.; Rawles, S.D.; Webster, C.D.; Cummins, V.; Kobayashi, Y.; Thompson, K.R.; Gannam, A.L.; Twibell, R.G.; Hyde, N.M. Optimizing Fish Meal-Free Commercial Diets for Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis Niloticus. Aquaculture 2016, 452, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Youssef, S.; Salem, S.M.R.; Mahmoud, R.E.; Mohamed, T.I. Effect of Protein Reduction with Indispensable Amino Acid Supplementation at Different Levels in Practical Diets of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Fish. Mansoura Vet. Med. J. 2023, 23, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Furuya, W.M.; Botaro, D.; de Macedo, R.M.G.; dos Santos, V.G.; Silva, L.C.R.; Silva, T.D.C.; Furuya, V.R.B.; Sales, P.J.P. Ideal Protein Concept for Dietary Protein Reduction of Juvenile Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2005, 34, 1433–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, X.; Han, T.; Zheng, S.; Wu, G. Nutrition and Functions of Amino Acids in Aquatic Crustaceans. In Amino Acids in Nutrition and Health: Amino Acids in the Nutrition of Companion, Zoo and Farm Animals; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 169–198. [Google Scholar]
  61. da Silva, L.M.; Savay-Da-Silva, L.K.; de Abreu, J.G.; Figueiredo, E.E.S. Determination of Morphometric Indices to Promote Fillets of Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Industrial Yield. Bol. Inst. Pesca 2016, 42, 252–257. [Google Scholar]
  62. Carter, C.G.; Houlihan, D.F. Protein Synthesis. In Nitrogen Excretion, Fish Physiology; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 31–75. [Google Scholar]
  63. Cleveland, B.M.; Radler, L.M. Essential Amino Acids Exhibit Variable Effects on Protein Degradation in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Primary Myocytes. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2019, 229, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Liu, W.; Wen, H.; Luo, Z. Effect of Dietary Protein Levels and Feeding Rates on the Growth and Health Status of Juvenile Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquac. Int. 2018, 26, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zeng, N.; Jiang, M.; Wen, H.; Liu, W.; Wu, F.; Tian, J.; Yu, L.; Lu, X.; Guo, Z. Effects of Water Temperatures and Dietary Protein Levels on Growth, Body Composition and Blood Biochemistry of Juvenile GIFT Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquac. Nutr. 2021, 27, 240–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kabir, K.A.; Schrama, J.W.; Verreth, J.A.J.; Phillips, M.J.; Verdegem, M.C.J. Effect of Dietary Protein to Energy Ratio on Performance of Nile Tilapia and Food Web Enhancement in Semi-Intensive Pond Aquaculture. Aquaculture 2019, 499, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Santos, W.M.; Costa, L.S.; López-Olmeda, J.F.; Costa, N.C.S.; Santos, F.A.C.; Oliveira, C.G.; Guilherme, H.O.; Bahiense, R.N.; Luz, R.K.; Ribeiro, P.A.P. Dietary Protein Modulates Digestive Enzyme Activities and Gene Expression in Red Tilapia Juveniles. Animal 2020, 14, 1802–1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Enes, P.; Panserat, S.; Kaushik, S.; Oliva-Teles, A. Nutritional Regulation of Hepatic Glucose Metabolism in Fish. Fish. Physiol. Biochem. 2009, 35, 519–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Gonçalves, G.S.; Pezzato, L.E.; Barros, M.M.; Hisano, H.; Rosa, M.J.S. Level of Digestible Protein and Digestible Energy in Diets for Nile Tilapia Formulated Based on the Concept of Ideal Protein. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2009, 38, 2289–2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aquacj 04 00010 g001
Figure 1. Feed conversion of Nile tilapia fed diets containing different concentrations of DP (a) and CP (b) during the fattening phase, analyzed using the combination of linear-plateau regression (broken-line) and quadratic polynomial regression models.
Figure 1. Feed conversion of Nile tilapia fed diets containing different concentrations of DP (a) and CP (b) during the fattening phase, analyzed using the combination of linear-plateau regression (broken-line) and quadratic polynomial regression models.
Aquacj 04 00010 g001
Aquacj 04 00010 g002
Figure 2. Fillet yield of Nile tilapia fed diets containing different concentrations of DP (a) and CP (b) during the fattening phase, analyzed using a combination of linear-plateau regression (broken-line) and quadratic polynomial regression models.
Figure 2. Fillet yield of Nile tilapia fed diets containing different concentrations of DP (a) and CP (b) during the fattening phase, analyzed using a combination of linear-plateau regression (broken-line) and quadratic polynomial regression models.
Aquacj 04 00010 g002
Table 1. Experimental diets and ingredients composition with increasing levels of protein for Nile tilapia during the fattening phase.
Table 1. Experimental diets and ingredients composition with increasing levels of protein for Nile tilapia during the fattening phase.
CornSMT22T24T27T29T32
Ingredients Quantity (g/kg)
Corn1000.00-561.61490.22418.88347.46276.07
Soybean meal-1000.00381.42453.68525.94598.20670.46
Soy oil--19.5319.8320.1320.4420.74
CaHPO4--25.3123.7422.1320.5919.03
CaCO3--5.936.326.717.117.50
Vitamin-Mineral mixture 1--5.005.005.005.005.00
Salt--1.001.001.001.001.00
BHT 2--0.100.100.100.100.10
Adsorbent 3--0.100.100.100.100.10
Nutrients (g/kg)
Crude Protein93.50496.00240.60271.62298.75327.94353.49
Digestible protein 487.73443.60216.94244.31268.30294.09316.61
Gross energy (MJ/kg)17.1217.9917.9218.2717.9617.9918.17
Digestible energy (MJ/kg) 413.1512.8413.4813.6813.3813.3413.39
Lipids34.5019.0045.9545.1644.3743.5842.79
Dry matter927.20906.60931.42930.35933.21930.04928.92
Ash13.5059.7030.3533.7037.0540.4043.75
Starch661.0030.00382.65337.66292.67247.67202.66
Calcium 50.20 3.50 10.0010.0010.0010.0010.00
Phosphorus 51.90 5.90 8.008.008.008.008.00
Calculated essential amino acid composition (g/kg) 5
Arginine4.2034.9015.6717.8920.1122.3424.56
Phenylalanine4.2024.8011.8213.3114.8016.2917.79
Histidine2.6012.506.236.957.668.389.10
Isoleucine2.9022.2310.1311.5412.9414.3915.75
Leucine10.6036.5019.8721.7623.6425.5227.40
Lysine2.6029.1012.5614.4816.3918.3120.23
Methionine1.806.303.413.744.074.394.72
Met. + cyst 63.7013.607.267.988.709.4210.14
Threonine3.4018.709.0410.1511.2612.3713.48
Tryptophan0.606.702.893.333.774.224.66
Valine4.122.9011.0412.4013.7615.1216.48
SM: Soybean meal. 1 The guaranteed vitamin and mineral supplement levels per kilogram of product were as follows: vit. A = 1,200,000 IU; vit. D3 = 200,000 IU; vit. E = 12,000 mg; vit. K3 = 2400 mg; vit. B1 = 4800 mg; vit. B2 = 4800 mg; vit. B6 = 4000 mg; vit. B12 = 4800 mg; folic acid = 1200 mg; calcium pantothenate = 12,000 mg; vit. C = 48,000 mg; biotin = 48 mg; choline = 65,000 mg; niacin = 24,000 mg; Fe = 10,000 mg; Cu = 6000 mg; Mn = 4000 mg; Zn = 6000 mg; I = 20 mg; Co = 2 mg; and Se = 20 mg. 2 Hutyl hydroxy toluene. 3 Mycotoxin adsorbent. 4 Calculated values using the digestibility coefficient determined by [35]. 5 Calculated values using tabulated data [36]. 6 Methionine plus Cystine.
Table 2. Water quality parameters determined in experimental fattening phase systems for Nile tilapia offered diets containing increasing protein levels.
Table 2. Water quality parameters determined in experimental fattening phase systems for Nile tilapia offered diets containing increasing protein levels.
Variable
(mg/L)		Treatment CV 1p Value
T22T24T27T29T32
40th day
Total ammonia0.02600.03000.30520.33020.0363516.450.2341
PO43−0.24830.25050.27020.24800.24.3511.900.8296
Nitrite0.06440.07860.06670.07470.074412.710.3377
80th day
Total ammonia0.02010.02240.02850.02720.028821.130.3005
PO43−0.25880.24970.25800.26830.25919.570.9254
Nitrite0.05420.04560.06770.06570.055126.510.4358
1 Coefficient of variation; PO43−—dissolved orthophosphate.
Table 3. Performance parameters of Nile tilapia fed different levels of protein in the fattening phase.
Table 3. Performance parameters of Nile tilapia fed different levels of protein in the fattening phase.
VariableTreatment CV 1p Value
T22T24T27T29T32
IW (g) 24144114144144072.270.8745
FW (g) 36846917217216842.740.0693
WG (g) 4,270 b280 ab307 a307 a277 ab4.530.0135
DWG (g/day) 53.21 b3.34 ab3.65 a3.66 a3.30 ab4.530.0135
FC (g/day) 66.486.466.616.606.163.360.1485
SGR 70.60 b0.62 ab0.66 a0.66 a0.62 ab3.450.0115
PER 82.28 a2.12 b2.06 b1.88 c1.69 d2.210.0001
FCR 92.02 c1.93 bc1.81 a1.80 a1.87 ab2.310.0006
Survival (%)1001001001001000.00-
1 Coefficient of variation. 2 Initial weight. 3 Final weight. 4 Weight gain = (final average weight − initial average weight). 5 Daily weight gain = ((final average weight − initial average weight)/experimental days). 6 Feed consumption. 7 Specific growth rate = ((ln final average weight − ln initial average weight)/(experimental days) × 100). 8 Protein efficiency rate = ((weight gain (g)/protein ingested (g)). 9 Feed conversion ratio = (feed intake (g)/weight gain (g)). a–c Means within row with different superscripts differ (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Body performance parameters of Nile tilapia fed different levels of protein in the fattening phase.
Table 4. Body performance parameters of Nile tilapia fed different levels of protein in the fattening phase.
VariableTreatment CV 1Valor de p
T22T24T27T29T32
FY 231.96 b33.00 ab33.19 a33.30 a33.20 a1.250.0141
CY (g/100 g) 384.37 b85.29 ab85.72 ab87.16 a86.43 ab0.910.0128
HSI (g/100 g) 42.261.751.901.781.7613.930.1725
VF (g/100 g) 55.963.853.143.093.2939.090.1818
VSI (g/100 g) 611.359.798.999.719.0713.030.2339
TL (cm) 730.8031.6231.7331.4631.301.790.3428
SL (cm) 826.1026.5126.7026.4726.301.020.1539
TH (cm) 911.5011.4511.3111.2411.034.570.8111
1 Coefficient of variation. 2 Fillet yield = (fillet weight (g)/body weight (g)). 3 Carcass yield = ((carcass weight/body weight) × 100). 4 Hepatosomatic index = ((liver weight/body weight) × 100). 5 Visceral fat = ((visceral fat weight/body weight)/100). 6 Viscerosomatic index = ((viscera weight/body weight) × 100. 7 Total length; 8 Standard length; 9 Trunk height. a,b Means within row with different superscripts differ (p < 0.05).
Table 5. Body and fillet chemical compositions of Nile tilapia fed different levels of protein in the fattening phase.
Table 5. Body and fillet chemical compositions of Nile tilapia fed different levels of protein in the fattening phase.
Variable (g/100 g)Treatment CV 1p Value
T22T24T27T29T32
Moisture
Fish63.8463.8662.5365.1865.833.570.7424
Carcass66.4567.1268.0367.7268.431.720.3180
Filet74.8674.6174.6973.9474.790.970.5558
Protein
Fish17.4718.0417.4818.4518.523.660.2127
Carcass18.4018.7718.7119.0019.533.560.3778
Filet20.4521.1821.2021.5721.965.820.6625
Mineral matter
Fish5.075.244.644.804.5610.980.5146
Carcass4.464.794.574.674.6110.060.9220
Filet1.251.311.271.291.305.730.8494
Ether extract
Fish13.5312.7612.2511.5210.9515.060.4952
Carcass 10.55 a9.18 ab8.53 ab8.29 ab7.73 b9.630.0202
Filet3.382.862.803.121.9042.900.6429
1 CV: Coefficient of variation. a,b Means within rows with different superscripts differ (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Novodworski, J.; Matos, É.J.A.; Gonçalves, R.M.; Bombardelli, R.A.; Meurer, F. Protein Requirements of Fattening Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Fed Fish Meal-Free Diets. Aquac. J. 2024, 4, 135-147. https://doi.org/10.3390/aquacj4030010

AMA Style

Novodworski J, Matos ÉJA, Gonçalves RM, Bombardelli RA, Meurer F. Protein Requirements of Fattening Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Fed Fish Meal-Free Diets. Aquaculture Journal. 2024; 4(3):135-147. https://doi.org/10.3390/aquacj4030010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Novodworski, Jailson, Émerson José Alves Matos, Rafaela Mocochinski Gonçalves, Robie Allan Bombardelli, and Fábio Meurer. 2024. "Protein Requirements of Fattening Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Fed Fish Meal-Free Diets" Aquaculture Journal 4, no. 3: 135-147. https://doi.org/10.3390/aquacj4030010

APA Style

Novodworski, J., Matos, É. J. A., Gonçalves, R. M., Bombardelli, R. A., & Meurer, F. (2024). Protein Requirements of Fattening Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Fed Fish Meal-Free Diets. Aquaculture Journal, 4(3), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.3390/aquacj4030010

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop