Cell wall disruption: An effective strategy to improve the nutritive quality of microalgae in African catfish (Clarias gariepinus)

Jeleel O. Agboola, Emma Teuling, Peter A. Wierenga, Harry Gruppen, Johan W. Schrama*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The rigid cell walls of microalgae may hinder their utilization in fish feeds. The current experiment assessed the correlation between the accessibility of microalgae nutrients and their in vivo digestibility in African catfish. Nannochloropsis gaditana biomass was subjected to physical or mechanical treatments to weaken its cell wall; untreated—no disruption treatment (UNT), pasteurization (PAS), freezing (FRO), freeze-drying (FRD), cold pasteurization (L40) and bead milling (BEM). Six experimental diets formulated from differently treated and untreated microalgae (at 30% diet inclusion level) were tested on growth performance and apparent nutrient digestibility (ADCs) in juvenile African catfish. A basal diet (REF) containing no microalgae was used as reference diet. Results showed that biomass gain and feed conversion ratio of fish fed L40 and BEM diets increased by 13% and 11%, respectively, relative to the UNT diet. Additionally, FRD, FRO, L40 and BEM cell wall disruption treatments improved protein digestibility by 0.5%, 5.9%, 8.4% and 16.3%, respectively, compared to the UNT treatment. There was a positive correlation between accessibility of microalgal nutrients and their digestibility in African catfish. Nutrient digestibility of microalgae was dependent on extent of cell disruption. Also, the impact of cell disruption on nutrient digestibility of microalgae differs between African catfish and Nile tilapia.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)783-797
Number of pages15
JournalAquaculture Nutrition
Volume25
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2019

Fingerprint

Clarias gariepinus
digestibility
microalgae
catfish
cell walls
diet
nutrient
nutrients
freeze drying
accessibility
fish feeds
cold pasteurization
Nannochloropsis
biomass
pasteurization
fish
Oreochromis niloticus
digestible protein
experimental diets
freezing

Keywords

  • accessibility
  • algae
  • digestibility
  • disruption treatments
  • nutrient utilization
  • rigid cell wall

Cite this

@article{846e5dee8b9b4042a39d51499d0c0c4f,
title = "Cell wall disruption: An effective strategy to improve the nutritive quality of microalgae in African catfish (Clarias gariepinus)",
abstract = "The rigid cell walls of microalgae may hinder their utilization in fish feeds. The current experiment assessed the correlation between the accessibility of microalgae nutrients and their in vivo digestibility in African catfish. Nannochloropsis gaditana biomass was subjected to physical or mechanical treatments to weaken its cell wall; untreated—no disruption treatment (UNT), pasteurization (PAS), freezing (FRO), freeze-drying (FRD), cold pasteurization (L40) and bead milling (BEM). Six experimental diets formulated from differently treated and untreated microalgae (at 30{\%} diet inclusion level) were tested on growth performance and apparent nutrient digestibility (ADCs) in juvenile African catfish. A basal diet (REF) containing no microalgae was used as reference diet. Results showed that biomass gain and feed conversion ratio of fish fed L40 and BEM diets increased by 13{\%} and 11{\%}, respectively, relative to the UNT diet. Additionally, FRD, FRO, L40 and BEM cell wall disruption treatments improved protein digestibility by 0.5{\%}, 5.9{\%}, 8.4{\%} and 16.3{\%}, respectively, compared to the UNT treatment. There was a positive correlation between accessibility of microalgal nutrients and their digestibility in African catfish. Nutrient digestibility of microalgae was dependent on extent of cell disruption. Also, the impact of cell disruption on nutrient digestibility of microalgae differs between African catfish and Nile tilapia.",
keywords = "accessibility, algae, digestibility, disruption treatments, nutrient utilization, rigid cell wall",
author = "Agboola, {Jeleel O.} and Emma Teuling and Wierenga, {Peter A.} and Harry Gruppen and Schrama, {Johan W.}",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/anu.12896",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "783--797",
journal = "Aquaculture Nutrition",
issn = "1353-5773",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "4",

}

Cell wall disruption: An effective strategy to improve the nutritive quality of microalgae in African catfish (Clarias gariepinus). / Agboola, Jeleel O.; Teuling, Emma; Wierenga, Peter A.; Gruppen, Harry; Schrama, Johan W.

In: Aquaculture Nutrition, Vol. 25, No. 4, 08.2019, p. 783-797.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cell wall disruption: An effective strategy to improve the nutritive quality of microalgae in African catfish (Clarias gariepinus)

AU - Agboola, Jeleel O.

AU - Teuling, Emma

AU - Wierenga, Peter A.

AU - Gruppen, Harry

AU - Schrama, Johan W.

PY - 2019/8

Y1 - 2019/8

N2 - The rigid cell walls of microalgae may hinder their utilization in fish feeds. The current experiment assessed the correlation between the accessibility of microalgae nutrients and their in vivo digestibility in African catfish. Nannochloropsis gaditana biomass was subjected to physical or mechanical treatments to weaken its cell wall; untreated—no disruption treatment (UNT), pasteurization (PAS), freezing (FRO), freeze-drying (FRD), cold pasteurization (L40) and bead milling (BEM). Six experimental diets formulated from differently treated and untreated microalgae (at 30% diet inclusion level) were tested on growth performance and apparent nutrient digestibility (ADCs) in juvenile African catfish. A basal diet (REF) containing no microalgae was used as reference diet. Results showed that biomass gain and feed conversion ratio of fish fed L40 and BEM diets increased by 13% and 11%, respectively, relative to the UNT diet. Additionally, FRD, FRO, L40 and BEM cell wall disruption treatments improved protein digestibility by 0.5%, 5.9%, 8.4% and 16.3%, respectively, compared to the UNT treatment. There was a positive correlation between accessibility of microalgal nutrients and their digestibility in African catfish. Nutrient digestibility of microalgae was dependent on extent of cell disruption. Also, the impact of cell disruption on nutrient digestibility of microalgae differs between African catfish and Nile tilapia.

AB - The rigid cell walls of microalgae may hinder their utilization in fish feeds. The current experiment assessed the correlation between the accessibility of microalgae nutrients and their in vivo digestibility in African catfish. Nannochloropsis gaditana biomass was subjected to physical or mechanical treatments to weaken its cell wall; untreated—no disruption treatment (UNT), pasteurization (PAS), freezing (FRO), freeze-drying (FRD), cold pasteurization (L40) and bead milling (BEM). Six experimental diets formulated from differently treated and untreated microalgae (at 30% diet inclusion level) were tested on growth performance and apparent nutrient digestibility (ADCs) in juvenile African catfish. A basal diet (REF) containing no microalgae was used as reference diet. Results showed that biomass gain and feed conversion ratio of fish fed L40 and BEM diets increased by 13% and 11%, respectively, relative to the UNT diet. Additionally, FRD, FRO, L40 and BEM cell wall disruption treatments improved protein digestibility by 0.5%, 5.9%, 8.4% and 16.3%, respectively, compared to the UNT treatment. There was a positive correlation between accessibility of microalgal nutrients and their digestibility in African catfish. Nutrient digestibility of microalgae was dependent on extent of cell disruption. Also, the impact of cell disruption on nutrient digestibility of microalgae differs between African catfish and Nile tilapia.

KW - accessibility

KW - algae

KW - digestibility

KW - disruption treatments

KW - nutrient utilization

KW - rigid cell wall

U2 - 10.1111/anu.12896

DO - 10.1111/anu.12896

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 783

EP - 797

JO - Aquaculture Nutrition

JF - Aquaculture Nutrition

SN - 1353-5773

IS - 4

ER -