Cited by 51Aquaculture Nutrition and GrowthAquaculture disease management and microbiotaAlgal biology and biofuel production

Approaches to improve utilization of Nannochloropsis oceanica in plant-based feeds for Atlantic salmon

Open access
Gong, Yangyang, Sørensen, Solveig L., Dahle, Dalia, Nadanasabesan, Nimalan, Dias, Jorge, Valente, Luisa M.P., Sørensen, Mette, Kiron, Viswanath·2020·Aquaculture

Abstract

Rigid cell walls of microalgae lower the digestibility and nutrient bioavailability in carnivorous fish. Extrusion is a thermo-mechanical process and a scalable technology that may break cell walls and improves nutrient utilization. It can be hypothesized that certain feed additives may further improve microalgae nutrient digestibility and feed utilization by fish. The aim of the current study was to investigate i) the effect of incorporation of 10% pre-extruded Nannochloropsis oceanica on nutrient digestibility, growth and feed utilization of Atlantic salmon post smolts, and ii) the ability of feed additives in improving the feed utilization. Four low fish meal feeds were formulated; a control without the microalga N. oceanica (CO), a feed containing 10% of the pre-extruded microalga (NC), and two feeds containing 10% of the pre-extruded microalga and supplemented with either 0.06% Digestarom® (ND) or 1% ZEOFeed (NZ). Fish (initial average weight of 227.3 ± 3.4 g) in 5 replicate tanks of each of the study groups were fed one of the experimental feeds for 68 days. The apparent digestibility of dry matter in the NC and NZ groups were significantly higher compared to the control group (CO). The digestibility of lipid was significantly lower, and digestibility of ash was higher in the alga-fed groups (NC, ND and NZ) compared to the control group (CO). The incorporation of 10% pre-extruded N. oceanica in plant-based commercial-like feeds did not affect the growth, feed utilization and whole body proximate composition of salmon. No effects of the feed additives were observed on growth, feed utilization and histomorphology of distal intestine of salmon, but cell proliferation (PCNA) was higher for fish fed the alga alone as well as the alga-ZEOfeed combination. There were no differences in polyunsaturated fatty acids in whole body of fish fed the different feeds. It is noteworthy that whole-body EPA + DHA levels of fish fed the algae feeds were maintained at the same levels as fish fed the control feed that contained 50% more fish meal and 10% more fish oil.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735122

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Diets containing up to 15% microalgae resulted in comparable feed intake to control.

    “In general, the diets containing up to 15% microalgae resulted in comparable feed intake to control (Abdelghany et al., 2020;Gong et al., 2020;Walker and Berlinsky, 2011;Yu et al., 2020).”

    From Potential of microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture (2021) · cites this paper as Gong et al., 2020

  • The biochemical properties of microalgae can affect the extrusion process.

    “The biochemical properties of microalgae can affect the extrusion process (Gong et al., 2020).”

    From Potential of microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture (2021) · cites this paper as Gong et al., 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 71 · Cited by 51

Authors
Gong, Y., Sørensen, S. L., Dahle, D., Nadanasabesan, N., Dias, J., Valente, L. M. P., Sørensen, M., & Kiron, V.
Affiliations
  • Nord University (NO)
  • Sparos (Portugal) (PT)
Corresponding author
Sørensen, Mette
Venue
Aquaculture
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-05
Volume
522
Pages
735122
ISSN
0044-8486 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3006081550
Cited by
51
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2
FWCI
5.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Aquaculture (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Research Council of Norway (260190)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Aquaculture disease management and microbiota
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
Keywords
Nannochloropsis oceanica, Atlantic salmon, microalgae feed, extrusion, cell wall digestion, nutrient digestibility, plant-based fish feed, feed additives, growth performance, feed conversion, intestinal histomorphology, cell proliferation, polyunsaturated fatty acids, EPA and DHA, post-smolt salmon

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review