D. Allen Davis School of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Aqautic Sciences, Auburn University.

Transcription

1 D. Allen Davis School of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Aqautic Sciences, Auburn University.

2 When asked to talk Thought about possible titles Can t we learn from Asia shrimp farmers? After 17 years of production, why haven t I figure feed management out? Are shrimp smarter than me? Return of the candy man: Candy on demand!

3 THE USE OF AUTOMATED FEEDING SYSTEMS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PACIFIC WHITE SHRIMP Litopenaeus vannamei: A RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE. Davis, D. A.* C. Ullman, M. Rhodes, R. Novriadi, and A. Swanepoel

4 Feed storage Quality control Quantity received Inspections for damaged bags Inventory procedures First in first out Minimal inventory, based on constraints of the operation.

5 Basics of feeding 1. Diet must be properly stored to keep it fresh. 2. Nutrition and feeding practices go hand in hand. a) Diet is worthless unless properly applied. b) Application is worthless unless the diet is nutritious. c) If it is not consumed it is expensive fertilizer.

6 Feeding programs All feeding programs must account for Site specific conditions Historical results (typical growth rates, seasonal variations) Anticipated problems (stresses, disease, temperature, etc.) Learn from mistakes

7 A number of tools are available for feed management of shrimp. Observation - Feeding trays (partial or all) Programed - Feeding tables Published In house Taro cards/crystal ball/psychic hot line Most people use a combinations of various methods.

8 Understanding Feed Management

9 Feeding on demand Linkage of feed inputs with a responses with a reward.

10 =

11 Is there a new paradigm in feed management of shrimp based on feedback? How would it work?

12 17 years and still learning!

13 Kg/ha/day Feed inputs based on two feedings per day for shrimp at around 35/m Week Historic 40% protein 30% protein Feed curve 2006 Fixed 2017

14 At two feedings per day Our best management strategy is to restrict the feed 1. Promotes the use of natural foods. 2. Ensures shrimp are hungry so they clean up all the food. 3. Promotes improved FCR without sacrificing growth. 4. Improves pond bottom quality.

15 At two feeding per day. Why has growth not increased when feed is increase?

16 Example of outdoor tanks and feed inputs. 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

17 Final wt Biomass 0,88 0,86 0,84 0,82 0,80 0,78 0,76 0,74 0,72 0,70 FCR 1,45 1,40 1,35 1,30 1,25 1,20 1,15 1,10 kg shrimp/kg feed

18 Shrimp Feeding Video

19

20 What effects feed intake and growth?

21 Percent gain 1: LEACHING Response of 0.3 g shrimp in a green water system to feed that was pre leached for varying periods After about 1 hr in the water the nutritional value decreases Time feed was leached

22 Grams of feed per shrimp Response of shrimp (5g) to a commercial feed using multiple feedings to allow a range of times. 0,4 2: FEED INTAKE 0,35 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0, Time in minutes

23 Remember the automatic feeder is a tool 1) Allow more feedings (same quantity less time in water) 2) Spreads out nutrient loading 3) Reduces labor for multiple feeding

24 Feeders come in all shapes sizes & configurations.

25 Evaluate different feeding techniques hand feeding timer feedings automatic feeding with acoustic feedback Compare growth performance production water quality economic returns Objectives 2016 production

26 Pond characteristics: 16, 0.1 ha-ponds 1 m average depth HDPE lined pond 25-cm of soil Materials & Methods Pond preparation: Bottom tilled Filled brackish water Fertilized (sechii disk reading 25-40cm)

27 Materials & Methods Stocking PL nursed for 17 days 76.3 ± 18.0 mg juveniles stocked to 16 ponds Stocking density: 17 shrimp/m 2 Feeding Equally fed during first 4 wks Feed 40% CP/9% Lipid (1.5mm) High soy production diet 36%CP/8%CL (2.4mm) from week 4-16

28 Ingredient % Soybean meal Poultry by-product meal 8.00 Corn Gluten meal 8.00 Wheat Dicalcium phosphate 3.13 Fish Oil Top dress 3.00 Fish Oil Mixer 2.00 Bentonite 1.50 Lecithin 1.00 Vitamin premix 0.12 Mineral premix 0.12 Tiger C 0.02 Copper sulfate 0.01 Protein Lipid 7.01 Fiber 2.56 Moisture Ash 8.55 Phosphorus 1.20 High Soy feed formulation Proximate analysis by University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Chemical Laboratories (Columbia, MO, USA).

29 Feeding Techniques Trt 1=Standard feeding protocol (SFP): FCR 1.2, growth rate 1.3 g/wk and mortality 25%/16 wk Ration divided into 2 hand feedings/day Trt 2= SFP plus 15% more from weeks 8-16 Trt 3= SFP divided into 6 feedings/day using solar timer feeders Trt 4=AQ1 automatic feeders with acoustic feedback Max 12kg/day feeding only between 7am-7pm

30 AQ1 Sound Feeding System (SF200)

31 On Site Water Quality Aeration at night at 10 hp/ha Temperature, DO, ph, and salinity Three times daily TAN and Secchi were monitored weekly Parameter SFP SFP + 15% Timer Acoustic Salinity (ppt) Morning Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) Afternoon Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) Night Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) Average ph Average Temperature ( C)

32 Water Quality Samples shipped to Auburn at week 0, 4, 8-16 for Analysis Chlorophyll a by membrane filtration, acetone-methanol extraction of phytoplankton, and spectroscopy Total Ammonia Nitrogen by the Salicylate method Nitrite-nitrogen by the Diazotization method Nitrate-nitrogen by the Szechrome NAS reagent method Total Nitrogen by Ultraviolet Spectrophotometric Screening method Total Phosphorus by Ascorbic Acid method Soluble Reactive Phosphorus by Ascorbic Acid method Total Suspended Solids and Total Suspended Volatile Solids Turbidity by Nephelometry Conductivity and Salinity Biological Oxygen Demand

33

34 Weight (g) Growth response of shrimp stocked at 18 shrimp/m 2 and offered various feeding strategies Days of culture Standard Feeding Increase Feed 15% at Week 8 Solar Feeding-standar feed ration (Equal feedings at 8am, 10am, 12pm, 2pm, 4pm, and 6pm) AQ1 - self adjusting to demand with 10 kg maximum load AQ1 6 feeding 2 feedings

35 Growth and Production after 16 weeks of culture at 17 shrimp/m 2. Treatment Yield (kg/ha) Final Wt. (g) % Survival FCR Weight Gain (g/wk) Biomass (kg) Body Wt. Fed (%) Final #/pond SFP 1 3,068.5 a a a a ,031 SFP+15% 3,032.5 a a a a ,341 Timer* 3,294.3 a b b a ,502 Acoustic 4,568.8 b c c b ,679 P-Value < < PSE *One pond excluded due to low DO and high mortality

36 Final Wt. (g) Feed Input (kg/ha) Final Wt and Feed Input a a a a b a c b SFP SFP + 15% Timer AQ1 Treatment Final Wt. (g) Feed (Kg/ha) 0

37 % Distribution Distribution of Shrimp by Size Class ($1.40/lb) ($1.50/lb) ($1.55/lb) ($1.60/lb) ($1.65/lb) Count Per Pound (Value) ($1.80/lb) ($2.00/lb) 6-10 ($2.00/lb) SFP SFP + 15% Timer AQ1

38 Quick and Dirty Economics (4 Ponds) SFP SFP + 15% Timer AQ1 Shrimp Sales ($/ha) $ 11,810 $ 11,776 $ 13,446 $ 21,198 Feed ($/ha) $ (2,840) $ (3,102) $ (3,158) $ (5,289) Equipment* ($/ha) $ - $ - $ (589) $ (5,630) Income Less Cost ($/ha) $ 8,969 $ 8,674 $ 9,698 $ 10,278 Income over SFP ($/ha) $ (295) $ 728 $ 1,309 Income over SFP ($/ha) (costs amortized over 5 years) $ (295) $ 1,199 $ 5,813 *Equipment cost only includes equipment not needed for SFP

39 Objectives 2017 production Evaluate different feeding techniques Standard hand feeding Timer feedings (115 and 130%) Automatic feeding with acoustic feedback Standard Protocol (38 shrimp/m 2)

40 Stocking 38 shrimp/m2

41 Standard Hand Feeding 2 x day (SFR) Automatic 6 x day 115 and 130% SFR Automatic Feedback Ad libitum

42 Kg/ha Feed inputs for shrimp stocked at 38 shrimp/m Harvest? Days of culture Sandard Feeding Feeder 115% Feeder 130% AQ1 AQ2 AQ3

43 Weight (g) Growth rate of shrimp stocked at 38 shrimp/m Planed harvest Days of culture Sandard Feeding Feeder 115 Feeder 130 AQ1

44 We called a met to discuss production! Feed inputs 150 kg/day Aeration capacity is maximum Growth rates > 20 g shrimp > 3-4 g/wk growth Statistical resolution of all treatments.

45 They contemplated harvest dates.

46 Scientifically chose a new date. Considered How soon can we organize. What is the football schedule. Holiday conflicts.

47 Kg/ha Feed inputs for shrimp stocked at 38 shrimp/m Harvest at 90 day Days of culture Sandard Feeding Feeder 115% Feeder 130% AQ1 AQ2 AQ3

48 Weight (g) Growth rate of shrimp stocked at 38 shrimp/m Days of culture Sandard Feeding Feeder 115 Feeder 130 AQ1

49 Table 1. Production results (n=4) for Litopenaeus vannamei cultured in 0.1 ha ponds over a 13-week (90 day) culture period. * n=3 Trt Feed (kg/ha) Yield (kg/ha) Individual weight (g) Survival (%) FCR $ of Feed/kg shrimp produced (usd) Value ($/ha) SFP 5250 a 4843 a a ,982 a Timer b 5629 a b ,279 ab Timer c 6416 ab c ,687 bc AQ1 * 9002 d 7430 b d ,587 c P- Value < < PSE Quick Economics

50 What have we learned?

51 Positive take home message 1. Increase feed input and growth rates is possible but only with increased number of feeding. Increased # feedings clearly improves performance even at same level feed inputs

52 Positive take home message Typical production cycle to > 20 g shrimp 120 days 1. Automated feeding systems ~ 60 day to 20 g on best treatment 2. On demand feeding clearly improves feed inputs and growth. Essentially doubling both growth and feed inputs. 3. Results on FCR will depend on your starting point. 1. Conservative feeder may go up a little 2. Over feeding FCR will go down

53 Considerations 1. Technical issue with feeders Perch for birds Batteries and/or motors can fail Rain or high moisture can clog feeder 2. Feed is dispersed by impact Breaks feed & creates fines.

54 My opinion 1.Production model must change. 1. Growth rates, nutrient loading and oxidation requirements (aeration capacity). 2.Cost is easily covered by production improvements.

55 My opinion 3. How you figure this investment depends 1. Duplication of DO monitoring or aeration controls? 2. Pond layout and electricity 3. Number of ponds 4. Automation has numerous advantages the future is here embrace it.

56 Questions or comments