AQUAFEED ▶▶▶
An approach to quality control at the feed mill
Reliance on marine-based ingredients has been problematic for the aquaculture feed industry for many years. The industry still has some ways to go in producing a fish meal-free diet across all species, but R&D developments in this area have highlighted the fact that fish do not require fishmeal to grow and perform optimally.
BY BEN LAMBERIGTS, RUBEN GROOT, NIAMH MCNALLY, ALLTECH AQUACULTURE T
he only requirements that are needed for fish to ensure optimal performance are: • Essential nutrients, such as digestible protein, fat for energy, vitamins and minerals
• Palatable compound feed • Good water quality
By defining alternatives that meet these requirements, those ingredients are no longer alternatives; they are equivalent – and often superior – sources of nutrition. Plant-based protein sources are still the number-one preferred alternative for replacing fishmeal in aquaculture feeds. The high inclusion of plant-based ingredients in connection with the challenges associated with climate change are expected to bring a higher level of mycotoxin contamination to aquaculture. To act both quickly and effectively, it is very important to understand the risk level for individual species and specific raw materials, as this is the basis of a strong quality-control programme.
Figure 1 – Three-pillar approach to mycotoxin management. 1: Data collection
2: Feed Formulation
A three-pillar approach to quality control A strong quality control programme is the foundation for establishing effective mycotoxin management at the feed mill. Such a programme helps ensure that all raw materials entering the facility are quality tested based on several fac- tors and strategies, including storage, processing and finished feed storage. Research was carried out to assess the mycotoxin risk and data was collated from the Alltech laboratory (from 2012 to 2019) comprising wheat, maize and soybean meal and com- plete fish feeds. A raw material analysis highlighted the fact that more than 80% of the wheat samples, 95% of the maize and 87% of the soybean returned positive mycotoxin results; 43 individual toxins were detected in wheat and maize and 34 in soybean meal. The analysis of fish feed samples found that DON was the toxin that appeared most and had the highest toxicity. The second stage of this project led to a meta analysis to demonstrate the risk of DON for feed intake and growth per- formance. Simultaneously, data was collected to quantify the risk of exposure in fish. The extent to which DON affects feed intake and growth performance was evaluated by employing a meta-analytical approach. A three-pillar approach is used to manage the mycotoxin risk. These three pillars are brought together in feed formu- lation software to analyse and calculate the risk associated with each feed that is being manufactured with appropriate practices in place to mitigate the associated risk.
3: Feed Manufacturing Data monitoring
Mycotoxin testing
Individual Recipes
Risk Evaluation
MYCOSORB A+® Acurate
Inclusion Species Finished Feed
Pillar 1: Mycotoxin data collection When they are brought into the feed facility, a mycotoxin risk assessment process to screen the various raw materials of plant origin takes place. This risk assessment is based on two factors: 1. The individual assessment of raw materials entering the mill. Periodic screening is completed using the Alltech 37+ lab, with more frequent testing performed using the Neogen Raptor for faster results. 2. An analysis of the Alltech European Harvest Survey, which is conducted on an annual basis, to assess the risk for raw materials in the region. This risk assessment process reveals which raw materials are at risk of containing mycotoxins and which mycotoxins are present in these raw materials.
10 ▶ ALL ABOUT FEED | Volume 30, No. 5, 2022
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
