Cited by 87Aquaculture Nutrition and GrowthAlgal biology and biofuel productionAquaculture disease management and microbiota

Digestibility of the defatted microalgae Nannochloropsis sp. and Desmodesmus sp. when fed to Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar

Open access
Gong, Y., Guterres, H.A.D.S., Huntley, M., Sørensen, M., Kiron, V.·2018·Aquaculture Nutrition

Abstract

The aim of the study was to investigate the apparent digestibility coefficient (ADC) of defatted biomass derived from microalgae Nannochloropsis sp. and Desmodesmus sp. when fed to Atlantic salmon postsmolts in seawater. Two experiments, one employing cold-pelleted and the other employing extruded pellets, were carried out to determine the ADC of dry matter (DM), protein, ash and energy. The test feeds consisted of a fishmeal-based reference feed and the algal biomass, at a ratio of 70:30, and yttrium oxide as the inert marker. The ADC of DM and protein in fish fed microalgae-incorporated cold-pelleted feeds were significantly higher for Nannochloropsis sp. compared with Desmodesmus sp. The Nannochloropsis sp. inclusion in extruded feeds also led to higher ADCs of DM and energy compared with Desmodesmus sp. The extrusion processing significantly increased the ADC of ash in both defatted microalgae biomass, as well as ADCs of DM in Nannochloropsis and protein in Desmodesmus sp. In conclusion, the microalga Nannochloropsis sp. was more digestible than Desmodesmus sp., and extrusion processing can be used as a means to improve digestibility of certain nutrients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/anu.12533

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Protein digestibility of thick cellulosic cell-walled microalgal species including Chlorella sp., Desmodesmus sp., Nannochloropsis sp., and Tetraselmis sp. in aquatic species ranged 80-89%, 54-67%, 69-81%, and 70-73%, respectively.

    “The protein digestibility of thick cellulosic cell-walled microalgal species including Chlorella sp., Desmodesmus sp., Nannochloropsis sp., and Tetraselmis sp. in aquatic species ranged 80-89%, 54-67%, 69-81%, and 70-73%, respectively (Gong et al., 2018;Moheimani et al., 2018;Niccolai et al., 2019;Skrede et al., 2011).”

    From Potential of microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture (2021) · cites this paper as Gong et al., 2018

  • Non-starch polysaccharides (fiber) found in microalgae are generally indigestible.

    “Non-starch polysaccharides (fiber; e.g., pectin, algenan, cellulose, etc.,) found in microalgae are generally indigestible (Gong et al., 2018).”

    From Potential of microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture (2021) · cites this paper as Gong et al., 2018

  • In a study involving the feeding of Nannochloropsis sp. biomass to Atlantic salmon, extrusion processed feed was shown to be more digestible than non-extrusion processed feed in terms of ash and dry matter.

    “In a study involving the feeding of Nannochloropsis sp.biomass to Atlantic salmon, S. salar, extrusion processed feed was shown to be more digestible than non-extrusion processed feed in terms of ash and dry matter (Gong et al., 2018).”

    From Potential of microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture (2021) · cites this paper as Gong et al., 2018

  • Extrusion can break the microalgae's recalcitrant cell wall, improving nutrient availability and digestibility.

    “Extrusion can break the microalgae's recalcitrant cell wall, improving nutrient availability and digestibility (Gong et al., 2018).”

    From Potential of microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture (2021) · cites this paper as Gong et al., 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gong, Y., Guterres, H. A. D. S., Huntley, M., Sørensen, M., & Kiron, V.
Affiliations
  • Nord University (NO)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Sørensen, M.
Venue
Aquaculture Nutrition
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-13
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
56-64
ISSN
1353-5773 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2587798117
Cited by
87
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4
FWCI
10.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Aquaculture Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • US Department of Energy (DE- EE0003371)
  • China Scholarship Council
  • East China Sea Fisheries Research Institute
  • Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences
  • The Royal Norwegian Embassy, Jakarta.
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Aquaculture disease management and microbiota
Keywords
Nannochloropsis, Desmodesmus, Atlantic salmon, apparent digestibility coefficients, nutrient digestibility, extrusion, fish meal replacement

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