Cited by 104Aquaculture Nutrition and GrowthAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyAlgal biology and biofuel production

Evaluation of microalgae as sources of digestible nutrients for monogastric animals

Open access
Skrede, A., Mydland, L., Ahlstrøm, Ø., Reitan, K., Gislerød, H., Øverland, M.·2011·Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences

Abstract

The study was carried out to evaluate three microalgae as potential nutrient sources in diets for monogastric animals.In a digestibility experiment with adult mink (Mustela vison), the microalgae Nannochloropsis oceanica, Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Isochrysis galbana were fed at 60, 120 and 240 g kg -1 as is, replacing fish meal.The N. oceanica and P. tricornutum had similar crude protein (CP) content (47.7 and 49.0% of DM, respectively), amino acid composition and lipid content (8.4 and 7.4%, respectively), whereas I. galbana contained 20.1% CP and 16.2% lipids.There was a significant linear reduction in CP digestibility with increasing dietary inclusion of all algae products.The apparent CP digestibility determined by linear regression for N. oceanica, P. tricornutum and I. galbana was 35.5, 79.9 and 18.8%, respectively.The individual amino acid digestibilities showed acceptable values for P. tricornutum, but low and highly variable values for N. oceanica and I. galbana.Although the algae contributed a minor proportion of dietary lipids, lipid digestibility declined with increasing inclusion of all algae and especially with the highest level of N. oceanica.It was concluded from the mink study that among the investigated algae, P. tricornutum was the preferable source of digestible nutrients.

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 · 10.22358/jafs/66164/2011

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Non-cellulosic species like Isochrysis sp. and Spirulina sp. had similar higher protein digestibility of 86%.

    “Other hand non-cellulosic species like Isochrysis sp. and Spirulina sp. had similar higher protein digestibility of 86% (Niccolai et al., 2019;Skrede et al., 2011).”

    From Potential of microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture (2021) · cites this paper as Skrede et al., 2011

  • In some cases, microalgae have lower protein content and higher carbohydrate content than conventional feed, reducing feed suitability.

    “In some cases, microalgae have lower protein content and higher carbohydrate content than conventional feed -reducing feed suitability (Skrede et al., 2011).”

    From Potential of microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture (2021) · cites this paper as Skrede et al., 2011

  • Microalgae like Chlorella sp. and Nannochloropsis sp. have low digestibility due to the presence of non-starch substances and rigid cell walls.

    “Microalgae like Chlorella sp., Nannochloropsis sp., etc., have low digestibility due to the presence of non-starch substances and rigid cell walls (Skrede et al., 2011).”

    From Potential of microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture (2021) · cites this paper as Skrede et al., 2011

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Spolaore P., Joannis-Cassan C., Duran E., Isambert A., 2006. Review. Commercial application of microalgae. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 101, 87-96

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Skrede, A., Mydland, L., Ahlstrøm, Ø., Reitan, K., Gislerød, H., & Øverland, M.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NO)
  • SINTEF (NO)
Corresponding author
Skrede, A.
Venue
Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences
Published
2011-03-12
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
131-142
ISSN
1230-1388 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040192912
Cited by
104
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Norges Forskningsråd (172580/S40)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
Keywords
microalgae, Nannochloropsis oceanica, Phaeodactylum tricornutum, Isochrysis galbana, mink, fish meal replacement, protein digestibility, amino acid digestibility, fat digestibility, alternative feed ingredients

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