CC BY
02023, Scienceline Publication
Worlds Veterinary Journal
World Vet J, 13(4): 595-605, December 25, 2023
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.54203/scil.2023.wvj64
Microfeed Incorporated with Probiotic for Aquaculture: A Review
Nor Mala Yaslikan1 , Jasmin Yaminudin2 ©, Nadiah Wan Rasdi3 , and Murni Karim1'2*
'Laboratory ofSustainable Aquaculture, International Institute ofAquaculture and Aquatic Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 71050 Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
2Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia 3Faculty of Fisheries and Food Science, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21300 Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia
Corresponding author's Email: murnimarlina@upm.edu.my ABSTRACT
Ensuring the availability of high-quality larvae in sufficient quantities remains a significant bottleneck for the grow-out phase of aquaculture. Over the past century, various alternative dietary solutions for larval stages have been explored, encompassing bacteria, microalgal pastes, yeasts, and various inert microparticles, though with inconsistent outcomes. This review aimed to discuss the innovative integration of probiotics into microfeeds, highlighting encapsulation, coating, and fermentation techniques to propel aquaculture productivity. Microfeeds, which are often nutrient-rich and easily assimilated in powdered or liquid form, play a crucial role in larval fish nutrition. These can be classified into microencapsulated, dry, liquid, and live feeds. The choice of microfeed is pivotal, ensuring appeal, digestibility, and water stability tailored to each larval stage. As probiotics gain popularity in aquaculture for their potential to enhance growth, bolster disease resistance, and improve water quality, their administration methods have diversified. The probiotics can be administered through direct immersion and bath treatments to biofloc systems and feed additives. The results indicated that microfeed incorporated with probiotics showed a positive result impact on the aquaculture industry.
Keywords: Alternative diets, Aquaculture, Microfeed, Probiotics INTRODUCTION
The aquaculture sector is in a solid foundation to address the escalating need for protein, a demand fuelled by the upward trajectory of user incomes, evolving lifestyles, and the expanding population. However, challenges in the aquaculture industry (such as regulatory framework, water quality management, and food production) of larval fish rearing limit the supply of sufficient numbers and high-quality larvae for grow-out production (Vadstein et al., 2018).
Feed is the most crucial yet often underutilized aspect of fish production, constituting over half of the expenses due to its high manufacturing costs and extra care (Iliyasu et al., 2016). The cost of producing live feed accounts for between 20% and 50% of a hatchery's overall operating expenditures. To find alternate or supplemental meals that might successfully reduce the dependency on live feeds for raising postlarvae, ongoing research remains active in this field (Nagappan et al., 2021). Over the past century, there has been much research on the usefulness of many alternative diets as food for larval stages, including bacteria, microalgal pastes, yeasts, and particular types of inert microparticles, with differing degrees of success (Albentosa et al., 2002; Enes et al., 2003; Ponis et al., 2003; Espinosa et al., 2006).
Micro-encapsulation is a method of enclosing liquids and particle food components within a finely designed wall (Nagappan et al., 2021). The biological system of the target fish or prawn larvae absorbs the internal nutrients in active locations. In the fish or prawn larval body, the wall or shell disintegrates by bacterial action, enzymatic action, pH shift, or rupture (Langdon, 2003). The capsule's wall could be made of a bio-degradable polymer, such as modified gelatine, with the nutrients inside being released by the animal's enzymatic processes or microflora in its gut. Capsules of the microfeed with a diameter of less than 20 microns have been reported, giving the culturist a wide variety of sizes of nutritionally diverse capsules to meet the different growth phases of the fish species (Vadstein et al., 2018).
Probiotics or beneficial microorganisms are believed to improve the fish immune system, especially in stressful environments, by influencing the gut colonization of probiotic bacterial strains and the generation of antibodies, acid phosphatase, lysozyme, and antimicrobial peptides (Salminen et al., 1999; Taoka et al., 2006; Panigrahi, 2007; Mohapathra et al., 2012a). Probiotics have direct immunostimulant properties, which can improve disease resistance, reduce stress response, and enhance gastrointestinal morphology (Ige, 2013). Benefits to fish producers and consumers include increased fish appetite, growth performance, feed utilization, carcass quality, meat quality, and fewer deformities
ISSN 2322-4568
A R
c n
c c
e i
p v
e ft
d :
2 i C C
O £
a-8
em
o b 0 r 2 2
R
E
I —
E
W
A R T
4
- L
3 E
595
(Ige, 2013). This review discussed the integration of microfeeds and probiotics, a practice increasingly adopted in the aquaculture industry to enhance growth index and health parameters.
MICROFEED
Microfeed is defined as a specific kind of feed designed to suit the particular nutritional needs (protein and lipid) of larval fish throughout their developing phases (Hamre et al., 2013). The type of fish being cultured and the particular nutritional needs of the larvae at various stages of development will determine the type of microfeed needed (Langdon, 2003). The nutritional needs of larvae during development would help enhance the quality of larvae and juveniles by optimizing diets and feeding procedures (Hamre et al., 2013). In 2017, fish and seafood intake accounted for 17% of protein altogether obtained from animals, and this fraction has been growing continuously (FAO, 2020).
Microfeeds for fish larvae commonly consist of very nutrient-dense, readily assimilated powdered or liquid diets (Langdon, 2003). Rotifers, artemia, copepods, and other kinds of phytoplankton are a few typical microfeeds for fish larvae (Dhont et al., 2013). For early-stage larvae, dry feeds like microparticles and powders are commonly used (Powell et al., 2017). Mid-stage larvae are usually fed with liquid feeds like emulsions and suspensions (Hua et al., 2019). For late-stage larvae, live feeds like algae and zooplankton are widely used (Murugesan et al., 2010).
The term "microencapsulated feed" refers to the sort of feed that has been specially formulated for the tiny mouths of fish larvae. Microencapsulated feeds offer a rich blend of easily digestible proteins, fats (lipids), and carbohydrates, complemented by vital minerals, vitamins, and micronutrients. Typically ranging from 50 to 500 mm in diameter, these feeds are sized optimally to ensure efficient consumption and digestion by larvae (Kolkovski, 2008). The feed components are encapsulated under a protective covering throughout production to increase stability and avoid nutrient loss (Temiz et al., 2018). This coating is often made of gelatine or other polymers (nylon and aramide, Temiz et al., 2018).
Dry feeds come in the form of microparticles and powders, designed especially in the early stages of larvae development (Jafari et al., 2008). For freshwater species like tilapia or catfish, the dry feeds can range from around 50 to 200 microns in size, while for marine fish larvae, which are often smaller than their freshwater counterparts, the dry feed size ranges from 20 to 100 microns in size, depending on the specific species, developmental stage and mouth size of the fish (Portella et al., 2008). Microparticles and powders (dry feed) for fish larvae can be fed directly into the larval rearing tanks or mixed into a solution to guarantee optimal distribution and consumption. To meet the larvae's particular dietary needs, they consist of a well-balanced blend of proteins, lipids, carbs, vitamins, minerals, and other vital components. Dry feeds may be produced using various methods, including grinding, milling, extrusion, and spray drying (Jobling et al., 2001). The final product's required physical qualities, target particle size, feed components, and processing technique are among the crucial considerations (Sorensen, 2012).
Liquid feed is another form of microfeed widely used for feeding mid-stage larvae in various applications, including aquaculture and insect rearing (Hua et al., 2019). In larval rearing, the emulsions technique is frequently produced by mixing lipid-based oils (fish oil, vegetable oil) with water-based solutions, including nutrients and other ingredients, compared to the suspensions technique that needs dispersing finely ground or micronized solid feed materials (fishmeal, microalgae, yeast) in water or another liquid media. Microalgae, which include Chlorella and Nannochloropsis, are small photosynthetic organisms that provide fish larvae with a suitable liquid diet. Large amounts of microalgae could possibly grow in specialized cultures. When compared to dry feeds, liquid feed is a more readily digestible source of nutrition, ensuring effective nutrient absorption.
Live feed is considered a microfeed for fish larvae. It includes algae and zooplankton that are commonly used as food sources for late-stage larvae in aquaculture and marine hatcheries (Das et al., 2007; Abbas et al., 2015). Omega-3 fatty acids, which are necessary for the proper growth of marine species, can be found in some microalgae (Adarme-Vega et al., 2012). Microalgae not only offer a natural food that closely reflects the creatures present in the larvae's natural habitat (Mau et al., 2017), but it can also be maintained at different growth stages to fit the nutritional requirements of varied larval species. Another live feed source for late-stage larvae is zooplankton, which are tiny floating organisms commonly found in aquatic ecosystems (Dumont et al., 2013). Depending on the particular needs of the larvae being raised, zooplankton consists of a variety of species, such as copepods, rotifers, and brine shrimp (Das et al., 2012). As the primary food supply for most marine species in the larval stages, they (algae and zooplankton) play an important part in the marine food web to ensure that the larvae receive a nutritionally balanced diet (Rasdi et al., 2020a; Rasdi et al., 2020b).
SELECTION OF MICROFEED
There are some essential elements for selecting a microfeed for fish larvae. Depending on the type of fish being cultured, the particle size might change. Feed particle size varies depending on the species, age, and feeding behavior of the fish,
596
as well as the aquaculture operation's output goals productions (Jobling et al., 2001). To ensure that fish larvae can effortlessly consume the feed particles, the particles need to be suitable for their small mouth.
To promote their growth (fish larvae), immune system, and general health, the microfeed should include high-quality proteins, necessary amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and fatty acids (Arney et al., 2015). The FAO reported that carnivorous species had dietary protein needs of 40-55 percent, whereas freshwater omnivore and herbivorous species have levels of 30-40 percent (FAO, 2010). For example, juvenile tilapia may need up to 40% protein daily for good growth (Luz et al., 2012). Lipids, contributing between 10% and 20%, provide the larvae with vital energy essential for their overall growth and optimal organ function (Lee et al., 2002). The development of the neurological system and visual abilities in fish larvae depends on omega-3 fatty acids, especially eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (Pilecky et al., 2021a). A potential strategy for improving dietary protein availability in compound feeds would be to prevent leaching by efficient encapsulation of feed particles that are supplemented with high levels of free amino acids (FAA), peptides, and soluble protein to mimic live feeds (Tonheim et al., 2007).
The term "digestibility" pertains to the extent to which something can be assimilated and broken down by the digestive system of fish (Tonheim et al., 2007). The higher digestibility indicates that more nutrients are accessible for the fish's growth and development (Tonheim et al., 2007). Fish larvae are categorized according to whether they have stomachs; a gastric fish lacks a stomach even as an adult (Ronnestad et al., 2013). The solubility of proteins, the source and level of lipids, the manufacturing processes used to make the feed, the presence of anti-nutritional factors that can reduce digestibility, and the feed's particle size each have an influence on the feed's digestibility for fish larvae.
Due to their frequent feeding demands and relatively high metabolic rates, fish larvae must be fed often (at least twice per day). The number of larvae per unit volume of water or the amount of food transferred per unit area or volume are the two common ways to represent the feeding density (Blancheton, 2000). The number of larvae per litter or cubic meter of water is generally utilized to represent the appropriate feeding density for fish larvae. To maintain the larvae's proper growth and survival, it is compulsory to develop an ideal feeding environment as well as temperature (warm water temperature), which affects metabolism with respect to protein and energy (Luz et al., 2012). Microfeeds that remain stable in water for an extended length of time are selected to give an assurance that the feed is accessible to fish larvae while not disintegrating or polluting the water excessively (Jobling et al., 2010). While the microfeed must be stable in water, it must also possess the right solubility properties. Dissolved nutrients from the microfeed can help the water become more nutrient-loaded, which might cause excessive ammonia levels, oxygen depletion, or algal blooms (NOAA, 2023). Less frequent feeding intervals are possible if the feed stays stable for a longer period of time, which reduces the labour and operational expenses linked to regular feed replenishment (Vivas et al., 2006).
Biosecurity is a vital part of fish larval rearing, including the feed used in the process (Kumar et al., 2022). One of the processes that may be employed in the creation of microfeed is to implement quarantine measures for a freshly obtained feed before introducing it into the larval rearing system. In order to maintain its quality and prevent contamination, fish larval feed must be handled and stored properly, for example, by selecting feed producers who follow good manufacturing procedures (GMP) and have strict quality control procedures to maintain the quality of production for the microfeed (Padilla, 2009).
FORMULATION OF MICROFEED
The properties of the feed should be appealing, stable in the water for a long period, and continued moving until the first feeding larvae can catch it. The standard diet size spans from 5 to 300 ^m, however, the diet's particle size and specific gravity depend on the species being produced and its embryonic stage (Amirkolaie et al., 2006). Due to its increasing cost and erratic availability, fish meal must be replaced in fish feed with less expensive materials of plant origin (Bhosale et al., 2010). The basic ingredients processing the microfeed consist of soybean meal, milk powder, egg, corn flour, cod liver oil, agar powder, and vitamin mixture (vitamin B complex and vitamin E). The nutritional value for each of the mentioned ingredients is beyond doubt as it is far-reaching among manufacturers. To maximize the development and preservation of the larvae, the microfeed composition and feeding regimens must be optimized for each type of fish larvae. 4% vitamin premix is suggested to maintain ideal feed solubility and the best possible feed quality (Mau et al., 2017).
It is hard to formulate a compound diet suitable for fish larvae because standard nutritional techniques cannot be used to estimate the nutritional requirements of fish larvae and because the current available commercially prepared diets do not sustain larval development (Cahu et al., 2001). Improving comprehension of the digestive processes in larvae has resulted in suggested food compositions that satisfy their nutritional needs.
Alternative feed component formulations usually fulfill the nutritional needs of a specific species while staying economically competitive and efficient (Sorensen, 2012). Low molecular weight, water-soluble chemicals can be delivered via lipid coatings with little leaching into the surrounding water (Langdon, 2003). Recent research has found that larvae have distinct dietary needs (Cahu et al., 2001). However, sufficient proteins must be provided to maintain
597
optimum growth because development is primarily protein deposition. The use of a ready-made diet allowed researchers to look into larvae's protein requirements, collect the most definitive data on lipid requirements, and examine glucidic and vitaminic nutrition.
Feed attractants should be included to induce a feeding response (Kolkovski et al., 2009). Physical and chemical characteristics, such as color, shape, size, movement, and smell stimulation at the molecular level, primarily influence the seeking, identification (of feed attractants), and ingesting processes. Some production of feeds fortified with astaxanthin, a carotenoid pigment, enhances the development of red coloration in the fillet of farmed charr in the weeks prior to harvest (Jobling et al., 2010). Using sustainable sources or naturally grown macroalgae in powder or meal form is a low-cost alternative to integrating feed attractants and stimulants (Kolkovski et al., 2009).
ADVANTAGES OF MICROFEED
The nutritionist puts forth considerable effort to reduce feed costs as part of an environmentally friendly aquaculture strategy. The reason is that they can spare protein and thus increase the cost-effectiveness of the diet, feedstuffs with relatively high quantities of carbohydrates are favored when formulating fish feed (Bhosale et al., 2010). The lipidic component of live prey significantly impacts the performance of larvae because it is more changeable and manageable. As a result, lipids and the essential fatty acids of fish larvae have been given more emphasis (Izquierdo et al., 2000).
The digestibility of a particular feed ingredient reflects the fish growth. The choice of dietary protein to be used in practical rations is an economic decision, which depends on the protein source as well as on the expected returns from fish growth and value (Bhosale et al., 2010). To obtain the best growth and development of fish larvae, DHA, EPA, and ARA should also be included in their (fish larvae) diet (Mejri et al., 2021). According to several studies, these fatty acids (DHA, EPA, and ARA) serve as a precursor for certain prostaglandins and other biologically active substances that control growth (de Mello et al., 2022). Therefore, protein and fatty acids contribute to satisfactory larvae fish growth.
Early-stage aquatic species have small mouths and limited feeding abilities, making it difficult for them to swallow normal feed particles. For their quick development and growth, it often contains high concentrations of proteins, and lipids, along with essential nutrients like vitamins and minerals (Siddik et al., 2023). Microfeed can assist optimum growth rates and general development by providing adequate nutrition in an accessible approach. Therefore, microfeeding is essential for their effective growth. In order to ensure that larvae and fry receive a sufficient amount of nutrients, microfeed is made to be small enough so that it can be easily digested. Besides, it will also increase the survival rates of the fish larvae indirectly as it has the right amount of feed consumed (Sardi et al., 2023)
Microfeed, which has been processed or ground to a smaller size than regular feed particles, has less of an impact on the environment (such as biodiversity loss and resource depletion). By giving animals small amounts of food on a regular schedule, microfeeding reduces feed wastage. It generates less trash and suspended particles, which can enhance water quality and reduce the danger of nutrient imbalances and decreased oxygen levels. For aquaculture systems to be healthy and productive, good water quality (pH from 6 to 9) must be maintained. It can enhance the overall economic effectiveness of animal production systems by reducing feed waste (Henriksson et al., 2021).
Besides, microfeeding has an improving effect on animal (fish larvae) welfare and wellness. Early-stage aquatic organisms fed on microfeed are more resistant to stressors and diseases because they deliver sufficient nutrition and sustain optimal health (Siddik et al., 2023). The particle size of microfeed also helps in lowering the possibility of feed loss, which can result in problems with the water supply and disease outbreaks in intensive culture systems (Siddik et al., 2023). It also contributes to a healthier gut microbiota and lowers the risk of digestive diseases by supplying an ongoing supply of nutrients, which helps maintain a stable gastrointestinal environment. Additionally, by fulfilling an animal's natural needs, regular feedings can reduce stress and improve performance (Siddik et al., 2023).
APPLICATION OF PROBIOTICS IN AQUACULTURE
In aquaculture, the application of probiotics has become increasingly prevalent (Table 1). These beneficial microorganisms serve as a powerful tool to protect aquatic organisms from diseases, foster growth, and enhance their immune capabilities, thus contributing significantly to the overall health and productivity of aquatic ecosystems. Generally, probiotics refer to the application of beneficial microorganisms as supplements for feed or water to improve the health and growth performance of aquatic organisms, such as fish, shrimp, and shellfish, in aquaculture systems. The most widely utilized probiotics are bacteria (such as Bacillus, Lactobacillus, and Enterococcus species) and yeast (such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Kurniawati et al., 2021). For instance, in carps, probiotics such as Lactobacillus spp., Bacillus spp., Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Lactococcus spp. are among the most common species that are currently being utilized (Feng et al., 2019). Probiotics offer several potential benefits in aquaculture, including enhancement of digestion and nutrient absorption (Samat et al., 2021).
Probiotics can be administered to aquatic life in a variety of methods, including as feeding additives. Usually, probiotics are added to the meal in liquid or dry form. It can be included in the formulation of commercial aquafeed or
598
prepared as a supplement to be manually added to the feed during the manufacturing process. To achieve optimum efficiency without having negative side effects, the amount of probiotics administered to the fish diet should be calculated based on the specific requirements of the aquatic organisms. In a study on keureling, Tor tambra (Cyprinidae) fish fry, the amount of probiotics that should be consumed is determined to be 10 ml kg-1 of feed (Muchlisin et al., 2017). Nevertheless, it is vital to comprehend that the recommended dose of probiotics for different species might differ (Muchlisin et al., 2017).
Another way to administer probiotics to aquatic organisms is by direct immersion in water containing probiotics. A concentrated solution of probiotics is prepared, typically by culturing the desired probiotic strains in a suitable medium range from a few minutes to several hours, depending on the species, size, and health condition of the aquatic organisms. The frequency of direct immersion might be a one-time treatment or repeated at regular intervals, such as daily or weekly, to maintain a consistent presence of beneficial microorganisms. A study found that submerging larvae of Nile tilapia in probiotic (Lactobacillus plantarum) led to considerably greater development and survival rates than the control group (Sherif et al., 2020).
Bath treatment is one of the applications of probiotic. The aquatic organisms are placed in a bath containing a concentrated solution of probiotics. The organisms come into direct contact with the probiotic solution, allowing the beneficial microorganisms to colonize their external surfaces and provide potential benefits, especially in the early stages of larval development, such as Lactobacillus acidophilus on the growth and survival of zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae. Depending on the intended application, the particular probiotic strains utilized, and the tolerance of the aquatic organisms, bath treatments can last from 1 to 4 hours. It improves disease resistance and fish growth (Song-Lin et al., 2012). Wang et al. (2020) also stated that Lactobacillus acidophilus bath treatment had a positive effect on growth performance, digestive enzyme activity, and disease resistance in juvenile grass carp that persisted for at least 4 weeks after the treatment.
Biofloc systems are defined as a form of aquaculture that uses microbial communities by converting waste into protein-rich food for fish (Crab et al., 2012). Probiotics in biofloc systems can support effective nutrient cycling and limit the spread of harmful microorganisms. Enzymes and other substances produced by the biofloc system will help break down feed elements and increase the bioavailability of nutrients (Kumar et al.,2021). A study on the evaluation of the biofloctechnology system showed improvement in mean final weights, specific growth rates, feed conversion ratios, and total biomass in Nile tilapia (Mohammadi et al., 2020). Recently, He et al. (2023) conducted a study showing that the addition of Bacillus (B.) subtilis to biofloc systems enhanced the water quality, growth performance, and immune enzymes of Litopenaeus vannamei.
PROBIOTICS MODE OF ACTION
The mode of action or mechanisms of probiotics refers to the specific ways these live microorganisms exert good impacts on the host's health. It is crucial the particular mechanisms of probiotics can vary depending on the strains used and the individual's initial characteristics (Plaza-Diaz et al., 2019).
In the first place, probiotics compete with dangerous microbes for resources and space, assisting in retaining microbial communities in the gut. Physical barriers that stop dangerous bacteria from adhering to the intestinal wall are created by probiotics' adhesion to the intestinal lining and occupation of surface regions. By occupying this area, fewer dangerous bacteria have a chance to grow and establish a presence (Amara et al., 2015).
Besides, short-chain fatty acids and other metabolites that promote gut health and general well-being are created when probiotics ferment food fibers. During the fermentation process, probiotics break down these dietary fibers into various by-products, among the most essential being short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs). Probiotics can produce a variety of additional metabolites from the fermentation of dietary fibers in addition to SCFAs, including bioactive substances with potential health advantages and gases like carbon dioxide and hydrogen (Bamigbade et al., 2022).
Some probiotics are thought to influence the metabolism of certain nutrients, such as B vitamins and fatty acids. They may also aid in the absorption of minerals like calcium. It has been shown that some probiotic bacteria may ferment food substrates to create B vitamins, including folate, riboflavin (B2), and cobalamin (B12, Kaprasob et al., 2018). These vitamins are crucial for several metabolic activities, such as DNA synthesis, cell development, and energy generation (Indira et al., 2019).
To conclude, some probiotic strains have been proven to aid in the detoxification of toxic substances, possibly lowering the chance of contracting specific illnesses. Antioxidant qualities in some probiotics may help fight off damaging free radicals and lessen oxidative stress. Heavy metals may be chelated or bound to by certain probiotics, aiding in the removal of these potentially hazardous chemicals from the body (Chen et al., 2022).
599
Table 1. The application of probiotics incorporated with microfeed using different methods toward different fish (larvae) species
Fish species Probiotics Technique Outcomes References
Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Bacillus subtilis and Lactobacillus plantarum (107 CFU/g respectively) Fermentation (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) higher amylase activity than the fish-fed control diet Essa et al. (2010)
Gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) Bacillus subtilis, B. licheniformis and B. cereus (solid form, 10 ppm per m3) Direct addition Specific alkaline and acid protease activity was greatly boosted (for improved growth parameters and nutrient conditions). Nihan et al. (2013)
European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) Lactic acid bacteria (Pediococcus acidilactici) (3.0g per kg, twice a day) Direct addition increases fish survivability and blood chemistry Eissa et al. (2022)
Pike-perch larvae Lb. paracasei subsp. paracasei BGHN14 (1.3g saline x volume and glycerol at 0.3 x volume per wet pellet weight) Coating supports skeleton development and improves fish growth. Ljubobratovic et al. (2021)
Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (106 CFU/ml) and Bacillus subtilis (106 CFU/ml) Microencapsulated enhances fish health and zootechnical aspects by showing how probiotics function as an immunomodulator. de Moraes et al. (2022)
Seabream (Sparus aurata) Bacillus subtilis (107cell/g) Microencapsulated improves the survival rates and length gain El-Dakar et al. (2020)
_ 600
ПЯИИИДИИИ Yaslikan NM, Yaminudin J, Rasdi NW, and Karim M (2023). Microfeed Incorporated with Probiotic for Aquaculture: A Review. World Vet. J., 13(4): 595-605. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.54203/scil.2023.wvj64
PROBIOTIC IN MICROFEED
Probiotic feed in aquaculture is an alternate protein source with a highly digestible protein and energy content as well as a healthy amino acid profile (Gomes et al., 2009; Nayak, 2010). A number of investigations have been conducted to evaluate the nutritional content of various foods (Gomes et al., 2009; Nayak, 2010). The incorporation of probiotics increases hemopoesis and produces nonspecific immunity in fish, according to the latest studies (Marzouk et al., 2008; Lazado et al., 2014). The lack of understanding of larval feeding contributes to the inability of microfeed development.
Foremost, probiotics can be incorporated into microfeed by direct addition. The probiotics are usually in the form of freeze-dried or lyophilized bacteria, which are mixed with the other ingredients of the microfeed before it is given to the aquatic organisms (Jalali et al., 2012). The type and amount of probiotics added must be examined to reduce the risk of probiotic degradation during processing or storage, which causes the probiotics to not survive the digestive process and limits their effectiveness. For instance, the microfeed is made by adding the probiotic bacteria containing 106 colony-forming units (CFU) of B. subtilis per gram of feed to the feed of juvenile Nile tilapia. It is proven that the microfeed incorporated with probiotics improved their growth performance, feed utilization, and immune response (Chen et al., 2014).
Another method is encapsulation allows disease-control drugs, such as antibiotics or probiotics, to be delivered to filter-feeding bivalves, improving disease management while reducing expenses, environmental harm, and threats to human health (Luzardo-Alvarez et al., 2010). It will create a capsule by enclosing the probiotics' core elements inside a wall material. In the process known as microencapsulation, the probiotics can be shielded from damaging environmental factors while being processed, stored, and transported through the gastrointestinal system (Rajam et al., 2022). Spray drying, lyophilization, emulsion, and extrusion are techniques used for encapsulation (Rajam et al., 2022). Spray drying is widely used in the aquaculture industry. It is cost-effective as it involves atomizing a solution containing the probiotics into a stream of hot air or nitrogen gas, forming small droplets that dry to form powder particles (Vivek et al., 2023).
Another approach is to coat the surface of the microfeed particles with probiotics. Although simple and cost-effective, the probiotics are not protected from harsh environmental conditions during digestion, which reduces their survival rate and effectiveness. Bahrami et al. (2023) proved the effectiveness of microencapsulated Lactobacillus acidophilus using an alginate/starch coating in Nile tilapia fry. The alginate-chitosan-probiotic-inulin layer is then applied to the microfeed particles after they have been submerged in this solution (Bahrami et al., 2023). This technique ensures that the probiotics can reach into the intestine, where they can exert their beneficial impacts while also helping to protect them from severe conditions (gut failure) of the gut (Bahrami et al., 2023).
Lastly, there is a fermentation technique process by utilizing microbial fermentation to produce a mixture of probiotics and microfeed. The probiotics are added to the feed, and the microorganisms break down the feed components and produce metabolites, which enhance the nutritional value of the feed and encourage the development of advantageous microorganisms (Soemarie et al.,2021). A study has been carried out on the Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) by analyzing their responses to supplemental probiotic brewer's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), which affects their development, feed consumption, and intestinal morphology (Islam et al., 2021). The fermentation that had been applied gave a positive result which improved feed conversion ratios and increased nutrient utilization (Islam et al., 2021). Another study is the utilization of lactide bacteria and yeast (for fermentation) with cellulase enzymes in the conversion of seaweed powder to seaweed silage, which was enriched with probiotics as food for fish larvae and rotifers showed better feed conversion and growth rates in Asian seabass after 56 days (Santhanaraju Vairappan, 2021).
CHALLENGE IN THE PRODUCTION OF PROBIOTIC-INCORPORATED MICRO FEED
Probiotics enhance digestion and nutrient absorption in the gut through the inclusion of beneficial bacteria into the feed diet increases feed utilization efficiency. While probiotics have been shown to have several benefits (on the digestive processes of aquatic animals) in aquaculture, incorporating them into microfeed can be challenging as it needs to be addressed to ensure their effectiveness and stability (El-Saadony et al.,2021).
It is needed to optimize the production process (preparation and preservation) to minimize the negative effect on probiotic viability. Probiotics may be subjected to a range of stressors during the microfeed manufacturing process, including heat, pressure, and mechanical forces (Fenster., 2019). Probiotics can be exposed to oxygen throughout the microfeed production and storage procedures, such as drying and packing, which may decrease their viability. It is necessary to find strains that are durable and resistant to the processing conditions, such as B. subtilis, B. licheniformis, and Lactobacillus acidophilus (Elshaghabee et al., 2017).
Probiotics have a limited shelf life, particularly when they are subjected to unfavorable factors like high temperatures, humidity, or light (Sun et al., 2023). An essential factor to take into consideration is extending the shelf life of probiotic-containing microfeed without affecting its viability. The effectiveness of probiotics in enhancing animal health, growth, and disease resistance will be impacted by their shelf life (Al-Shawi et al., 2020). Microfeed in fish feed
601
has a shelf life ranging from a few months to a year. In order to maintain the shelf life of microfeed, packing and storage conditions are very important.
The cost-effectiveness of using probiotics as specialized additives in microfeed is being examined in light of the advantages of probiotics in terms of fish performance improvement (Al-Shawi et al., 2020). Since formulating and producing tiny particles requires additional effort, microfeed is often more expensive than standard feed. High-quality proteins, specialized components, marine-based components, and medicinal additives are all incorporated into the microfeed. The reason the microfeed is effective is that the nutrients required serve specific nutritional needs or treat particular medical issues for the fish larvae (Beski et al., 2015).
Developing suitable techniques or technologies, such as the entrapment of probiotic bacteria in a gel matrix of gellan, alginate, xanthan, and k-carrageenan for delivering and distributing probiotics in microfeed can be one of the challenging issues in microfeed production. To protect against moisture, light, and oxygen, proper packaging materials must be selected to keep the probiotic incorporated with microfeed from contamination (Fenster,2019). It helps to keep probiotics alive and extends their shelf life. However, it is undeniable that the microfeed depends on the region and the particular probiotic strains used; thus, there may be legal requirements and limitations on the use of probiotics in aquaculture (Fenster, 2019).
CONCLUSION
When microfeed combines with probiotics, it increases its use in aquaculture. It appears that it will offer additional benefits (improving fish growth and reproduction), especially when the live stream is replaced. It is without debate that probiotics are widely used in the aquaculture sector. Further study of microfeed incorporated with probiotics must be done for the sustainability of aquaculture, especially for microencapsulated feed, as the live feed is limited and high-cost.
DECLARATIONS
Acknowledgments
The Protoype Research Grant Scheme PRGS/1/2020/WAB01/UPM/03/1 of the Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia (MOHE) provided funding for this study. The first author is enrolled in the University Putra Malaysia's Graduate Research Fellowship Scheme.
Funding
This work was supported through the Prototype Research Grant Scheme PRGS/1/2020/WAB01/UPM/03/1 of the Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia (MOHE).
Authors' contributions
Nor Mala Yaslikan conducted literature reviews and wrote the original manuscript. Nur Jasmin assisted in manuscript preparation and revision. Nadiah Rasdi contributed to the manuscript revision. Murni Karim supervised the content, revision, and proofreading of the manuscript. All authors confirmed the final draft of the manuscript.
Ethical considerations
The authors declare and confirm that the manuscript is original, has no misconduct, has never been published in another journal, and is confirmed to be published in this journal.
Availability of data and materials
All data generated during the research are relevant and included in this published article.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
REFERENCES
Agblevor FA, Beis S, Kim SS, Tarrant R, and Mante NO (2010). Biocrude oils from the fast pyrolysis of poultry litter and hardwood. Waste Management, 30(2): 298-307. DOI: https ://www. doi. org/10.1016/j.wasman. 2009.09.042
Amirkolaie AK, Verreth JAJ, and Schrama JW (2006). Effect of gelatinization degree and inclusion level of dietary starch on the characteristics of digesta and faeces in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus (L.)). Aquaculture, 260(1-4): 194-205. DOI: https://www.doi. org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.06.039
Abareethan M and Amsath A (2022). Characterization and evaluation of probiotic fish feed. International Journal of Pure and Applied Zoology, 3(2): 148-153. Available at: https://www.alliedacademies.org/articles/characterization-and-evaluation-of-probiotic-fish-feed.pdf
602
Abbas MF, Salman SD, and Al Mayahy SH (2015). Diversity and seasonal changes of zooplankton communities in the Shatt Al-Arab River, Basrah, Iraq, with a special reference to Cladocera. International Journal of Marine Science, 5: 1-14. DOI: 10.5376/ijms.2015.05.0024
Adarme-Vega TC, Lim DK, Timmins M, Vernen F, Li Y, and Schenk PM (2012). Microalgal biofactories: A promising approach towards sustainable omega-3 fatty acid production. Microbial Cell Factories, 11(1): 96. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2859-11 -96
Albentosa M, Perez-Camacho A, Fernandez-Reiriz MJ, and Labarta U (2002). Wheatgerm flour in diets for Manila clam, Ruditapes philippinarum (L.), spat. Aquaculture, 212(1-4): 335-345. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(02)00121-7
Al-Shawi SG, Dang DS, Yousif AY, Al-Younis ZK, Najm TA, and Matarneh SK (2020). The potential use of probiotics to improve animal health, efficiency, and meat quality: A review. Agriculture, 10(10): 452. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10100452
Amara AA and Shibl A (2015). Role of probiotics in health improvement, infection control and disease treatment and management. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(2): 107-114. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.07.001
Ige BA (2013). Probiotics use in intensive fish farming. African Journal Of Microbiology Research, 7(22): 2701-2711. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.5897/ajmr12x.021
Babazadeh D, Ghavami S, Nikpiran H, and Dorestan N (2015). Acute megabacteriosis and staphylococosis of canary in Iran. Journal of World's Poultry Research, 5(1): 1920. Available at: https://jwpr.science-line.com/attachments/article/27/J%20World%27s%20Poult%20Res%205%281%29%2019-20,%202015.pdf
Bahrami Z, Roomiani L, Javadzadeh N, Sary AA, and Baboli MJ (2023). Microencapsulation of Lactobacillus plantarum in the alginate/chitosan improves immunity, disease resistance, and growth of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Fish Physiology and Biochemistry, 49(5): 815-828. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2098318/v1
Bamigbade GB, Subhash AJ, Kamal-Eldin A, Nyström L, and Ayyash M (2022). An updated review on prebiotics: Insights on potentials of food seeds waste as source of potential prebiotics. Molecules, 27(18): 5947. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27185947
Barth S, Duncker S, Hempe J, Breves G, Baljer G, and Bauerfeind R (2009). Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 for probiotic use in piglets: Evidence for intestinal colonization. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 107(5): 1697-1710. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04361.x
Beski SS, Swick RA, and Iji PA (2015). Specialized protein products in broiler chicken nutrition: A review. Animal Nutrition, 1(2): 47-53. DOI: https ://www. doi.org/10.1016/j. aninu. 2015.05.005
Bhosale SV, Bhilave MP, and Nadaf SB (2010). Formulation of fish feed using ingredients from plant sources. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 1(3): 284-287. Available at: http ://rjas. org/ViewVolume
Blancheton JP (2000). Developments in recirculation systems for Mediterranean fish species. Aquacultural Engineering, 22(1-2): 17-31. DOI: https ://www. doi.org/10.1016/s0144-8609(00)00030-3
Cahu C and Infante JZ (2001). Substitution of live food by formulated diets in marine fish larvae. Aquaculture, 200(1 -2): 161-180. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00699-8
Chen R, Tu H, and Chen T (2022). Potential application of living microorganisms in the detoxification of heavy metals. Foods, 11(13): 1905. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3390/foods11131905
Collado MC, Grzeskowiak L, and Salminen S (2007). Probiotic strains and their combination inhibit in-vitro adhesion of pathogens to pig intestinal mucosa. Current
Microbiology, 55: 260-265. DOI: https ://www. doi. org/10.1007/s00284-007-0144-8
Crab R, Defoirdt T, Bossier P, and Verstraete W (2012). Biofloc technology in aquaculture: Beneficial effects and future challenges. Aquaculture, 356-357: 351-356. DOI: http ://www. doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture. 2012.04.046
Das SK, Tiwari VK, Venkateshwarlu G, Reddy AK, Parhi J, Sarma P, and Chettri JK (2007). Growth, survival and fatty acid composition of Macrobrachium rosenbergii (de Man, 1879) post larvae fed HUFA enrichedMoina micrura. Aquaculture, 269(1-4): 464-475. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.aauaculture.2007.04.069
de Mello PH, Araujo BC, Marques VH, Branco GS, Honji RM, Moreira RG, and Portella MC (2022). Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids n- 3 (n- 3 LC-PUFA) as phospholipids or triglycerides influence on Epinephelus marginatus juvenile fatty acid profile and liver morphophysiology. Animals, 12(8): 951. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3390/ani12080951
de Moraes AV, Owatari MS, da Silva E, de Oliveira Pereira M, Piola M, Ramos C, Farias DR, Schleder DD, Alves Jesus GF, and Jatoba A (2022). Effects of microencapsulated probiotics-supplemented diet on growth, non-specific immunity, intestinal health and resistance of juvenile Nile tilapia challenged with Aeromonas hydrophila. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 287: 115286. DOI: https://www.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115286
Dhont J, Dierckens K, St0ttrup J, Van Stappen G, Wille M, and Sorgeloos P (2013). Rotifers, Artemia and copepods as live feeds for fish larvae in aquaculture. Advances in Aquaculture Hatchery Technology, Chapter 5, 157-202. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1533/9780857097460.1.157
Dumont HJ, Rietzler AC, and Kalapothakis K (2013). Micromoina arboricola n. gen., n. spec. (Crustacea: Cladocera), a new moinid living in a forest tree-hole in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Zootaxa, 3652(5): 533-546. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3652.5.3
Eissa ESH, Baghdady ES, Gaafar AY, El-Badawi AA, Bazina WK, Abd Al-Kareem OM, and Abd El-Hamed NN (2022). Assessing the influence of dietary Pediococcus acidilactici probiotic supplementation in the feed of European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.)(Linnaeus, 1758) on farm water quality, growth, feed utilization, survival rate, body composition, blood biochemical parameters, and intestinal histology. Aquaculture Nutrition, 2022: 5841220. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1155/2022/5841220
El-Dakar A, Sheta EA, and Sam Z (2020). Evaluation of micro-particulate diets used in marine hatcheries for Seabream larvae reared with the probiotic bacterium Bacillus Sp, under the prevalent conditions in Egypt. World Journal of Aquaculture Research & Development, 2(1): 1009. Available at: https ://www. medtextpublications. com/open-access/evaluation-of-micro-particulate-diets-used-in-marine-hatcheries-for-seabream-515.pdf
El-Saadony MT, Alagawany M, Patra AK, Kar I, Tiwari R, Dawood MA, Dhama K, and Abdel-Latif HM (2021). The functionality of probiotics in aquaculture: An overview. Fish & Shellfish Immunology, 117: 36-52. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2021.07.007
Elshaghabee FM, Rokana N, Gulhane RD, Sharma C, and Panwar H (2017). Bacillus as potential probiotics: status, concerns, and future perspectives. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8: 1490. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01490
Enes P and Borges MT (2003). Evaluation of microalgae and industrial cheese whey as diets for Tapes decussatus (L.) seed: Effect on water quality, growth, survival, condition and filtration rate. Aquaculture Research, 34(4): 299-309. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2003.00818.x
Espinosa EP and Allam B (2006). Comparative growth and survival of juvenile hard clams, Mercenaria mercenaria, fed commercially available diets. Zoology Biology, 25(6): 503-525. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20113
Essa MA, El-Serafy SS, El-Ezabi MM, Daboor SM, Esmael NA, and Lall SP (2010). Effect of different dietary probiotics on growth, feed utilization and digestive enzymes activities of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Journal of the Arabian Aquaculture Society, 5(2): 143-162. Available at: https://arabaqs.org/journal/vol 5/2/Text%2010%20-%2011.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2010). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO., Rome, Italy. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/i1820e/i1820e00.pdf
Feng J, Chang X, Zhang Y, Yan X, Zhang J, and Nie G (2019). Effects of Lactococcus lactis from Cyprinus carpio L. as probiotics on growth performance, innate immune response and disease resistance against Aeromonas hydrophila. Fish & Shellfish Immunology, 93: 73-81. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2019.07.028
Fenster K, Freeburg B, Hollard C, Wong C, R0nhave Laursen R, and Ouwehand AC (2019). The production and delivery of probiotics: A review of a practical approach. Microorganisms, 7(3): 83. DOI: https ://www.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7030083
Gomes LC, Brinn RP, Marcon JL, Dantas LA, Brandao FR, Abreu JS, Lemos PEM, McComb DM, and Baldisserotto B (2009). Benefits of using the probiotic Efinol-L during transportation of cardinal tetra, Paracheirodon axelrodi (Schultz), in the Amazon. Aquaculture Research, 40: 157-165. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.02077.x
Hamre K, Yufera M, R0nnestad I, Boglione C, Concei?ao LE, and Izquierdo M (2013). Fish larval nutrition and feed formulation: Knowledge gaps and bottlenecks for advances in larval rearing. Reviews in Aquaculture, 5(s1): S26-S58. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1753-5131.2012.01086.x
He X, Abakari G, Tan H, Wenchang LIU, and Luo G (2023). Effects of different probiotics (Bacillus subtilis) addition strategies on a culture of Litopenaeus vannamei in biofloc technology (BFT) aquaculture system. Aquaculture, 566: 739216. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.739216
603
Henriksson PJG, Troell M, Banks LK, Belton B, Beveridge MCM, Klinger DH, and Tran N (2021). Interventions for improving the productivity and environmental performance of global aquaculture for future food security. One Earth, 4(9): 1220-1232. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.009
Hua K, Cobcroft JM, Cole A, Condon K, Jerry DR, Mangott A, Praeger C, Vucko MJ, Zeng C, Zenger K et al. (2019). The future of aquatic protein: Implications for protein sources in aquaculture diets. One Earth, 1(3): 316-329. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.018
Iliyasu A, Mohamed Z, and Terano R (2016). Comparative analysis of technical efficiency for different production culture systems and species of freshwater aquaculture in Peninsular Malaysia. Aquaculture Reports, 3: 51-57. DOI: https ://www. doi.org/10.1016/j. aqrep. 2015.12.001
Indira M, Venkateswarulu TC, Abraham Peele K, Nazneen Bobby M, and Krupanidhi S (2019). Bioactive molecules of probiotic bacteria and their mechanism of action: A review. 3 Biotech, 9: 306. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s13205-019-1841-2
Islam SMM, Rohani MF, and Shahjahan M (2021). Probiotic yeast enhances growth performance of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) through morphological modifications of intestine. Aquaculture Reports, 21: 100800. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100800
Izquierdo MS (2000). Essential fatty acid requirements of cultured marine fish larvae. Aquaculture Nutrition, 2(4): 183-191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2095.1996.tb00058.x
Jafari SM, Assadpoor E, He Y, and Bhandari B (2008). Encapsulation efficiency of food flavours and oils during spray drying. Drying Technology, 26(7): 816-835. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1080/07373930802135972
Jalali M, Abedi D, Varshosaz J, Najjarzadeh M, Mirlohi M, and Tavakoli N (2012). Stability evaluation of freeze-dried Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. tolerance and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus in oral capsules. Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences, 7(1): 31-36. Available at: https ://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/23181077/
Jang BI, Olowe OS, and Cho SH (2022). Evaluation of the optimal protein required in granulated Microdiets for rockfish (Sebastes Schlegeli) larvae. Aquaculture Nutrition, 2022: 2270384. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1155/2022/2270384
Jobling M, Gomes E, and Dias J (2001). Feed types, manufacture and ingredients. In: D. Houlihan, T. Boujard, M. Jobling, (Editors). Food intake in fish, pp. 25-48. DOI: https ://www. doi.org/10.1002/9780470999516. ch2.
Jobling M, Arnesen AM, Benfey T, Carter C, Hardy R, François NR, O'Keefe R, Koskelaand J, and Lamarre SG (2010). The salmonids (family: Salmonidae). Finfish aquaculture diversification. CABI., Wallingford UK, pp. 234-289. DOI: https ://www. doi. org/10.1079/9781845934941.0234
Kieps J and Dembczynski R (2022). Current trends in the production of probiotic formulations. Foods, 11(15): 2330. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3390/foods11152330
Kaprasob R, Kerdchoechuen O, Laohakunjit N, and Somboonpanyakul P (2018). B vitamins and prebiotic fructooligosaccharides of cashew apple fermented with probiotic strains Lactobacillus spp., Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Bifidobacterium longum. Process Biochemistry, 70: 9-19. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2018.04.009
Knauer J and Southgate PC (1999). A review of the nutritional requirements of bivalves and the development of alternative and artificial diets for bivalve aquaculture. Review in Fisheries Science, 7(3-4): 241-280. DOI: https ://www. doi.org/10.1080/10641269908951362
Kolkovski S, Lazo J, Leclercq D, and Izquierdo M (2009). Fish larvae nutrition and diet: New developments. New Technologies in aquaculture. Woodhead Publishing, pp. 315-369. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1533/9781845696474.3.315
Kumar V, Roy S, Behera BK, Swain HS, and Das BK (2021). Biofloc microbiome with bioremediation and health benefits. Frontiers in Microbiology, 12: 741164. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.741164
Kumar S and Paul T (2022). Biosafety and bio-security for sustainable aquaculture development. In: P. K. Pandey, J. Parhi, (Editors). Advances in Fisheries Biotechnology, Springer., Singapore, pp. 453-463. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3215-0 26
Kurniawati FA, Masithah ED, and Rahardja BS (2021). The effect of commercial probiotics on the phytoplankton diversity associated with biofloc. World's Veterinary Journal, 11(4): 725-730. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.54203/scil.2021.wvj92
Lalles JP, Bosi P, Smidt H, and Stokes CR (2007). Weaning- A challenge to gut physiologists. Livestock Science, 108(1-3): 82-93. DOI: https ://www. doi.org/10.1016/j. livsci.2007.01.091
Langdon C (2003). Microparticle types for delivering nutrients to marine fish larvae. Aquaculture, 227(1-4): 259-275. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/s0044-
8486(03)00508-8
Lazado CC and Caipang CMA (2014). Atlantic cod in the dynamic probiotics research in aquaculture. Aquaculture, 424-425: 53-62. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.12.040
Ljubobratovic U, Fazekas G, Koljukaj A, Ristovic T, Vass V, Ardo L, Stanisavljevic N, Vukotic G, Pesic M, Milincic D et al. (2021). Pike-perch larvae growth in response to administration of lactobacilli-enriched inert feed during first feeding. Aquaculture, 542: 736901. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736901
Luz RK, de Souza e Silva W, Melillo Filho R, Santos AEH, Rodrigues LA, Takata R, de Alvarenga ER, and Turra EM (2012). Stocking density in the larviculture of Nile tilapia in saline water. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 41(12): 2385-2389. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1590/s1516-35982012001200001
Luzardo-Alvarez A, Otero-Espinar F, and Blanco-Méndez J (2010). Microencapsulation of diets and vaccines for cultured fishes, crustaceans and bivalve mollusks. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology, 20(4): 277-288. DOI: https ://www. doi.org/10.1016/s1773 -2247(10)50045-5
Martinez Cruz P, Ibânez A, Monroy Hermosillo O, and Ramirez Saad H (2012). Use of probiotics in aquaculture. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2012: 916845. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.5402/2012/916845
Marzouk MS, Moustafa MM, and Mohamed NM (2008). Evaluation of immunomodulatory effects of some probiotics on cultured Oreochromis niloticus. 8th International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture, pp. 1043-1058. Available at: https://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/ista/ISTA8/Evaluation.pdf
Mejri SC, Tremblay R, Audet C, Wills PS, and Riche M (2021). Essential fatty acid requirements in tropical and cold-water marine fish larvae and juveniles. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8: 680003. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.680003
Mohammadi G, Rafiee G, and Abdelrahman HA (2020). Effects of dietary Lactobacillus plantarum (KC426951) in biofloc and stagnant-renewal culture systems on growth performance, mucosal parameters, and serum innate responses of Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry, 46: 1167-1181. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10695-020-00777-w
Muchlisin ZA, Murda T, Yulvizar C, Dewiyanti I, Fadli N, Afrido F, Siti-Azizah MN, and Muhammadar AA (2017). Growth performance and feed utilization of keureling fish Tor tambra (Cyprinidae) fed formulated diet supplemented with enhanced probiotic. F1000Research, 6: 137. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10693.1
Murugesan S, Sivasubramanian V, and Altaff K (2010). Nutritional evaluation and culture of freshwater live food organisms on Catla catla. Journal Algal Biomass Utilization, 1(3): 82-103. Available at: https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/521/ad75d67bdd605875608e1a13136acb68.pdf
Nagappan S, Das P, AbdulQuadir M, Thaher M, Khan S, Mahata C, Al-Jabri H, Vatland AK, and Kumar G (2021). Potential of microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture. Journal of Biotechnology, 341: 1-20. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2021.09.003
Nihan ARIG, Süzer C, Gökvardar A, Baçaran F, Çoban D, Yildirim Ç, Okan Kamaci H, Firat K, and Saka Ç (2013). Effects of probiotic (Bacillus sp.) supplementation during larval development of Gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata, L.). Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 13(3): 407-414. Available at: https ://dergipark. org.tr/en/download/article-file/141511
National oceanic and atmospheric administration (NOAA) (2023). What is eutrophication?. National Ocean Service. Available at: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/eutrophication.html, 10/05/17
Mau A and Jha R (2017). Aquaculture of two commercially important molluscs (abalone and limpet): Existing knowledge and future prospects. Reviews in Aquaculture, 10(3): 611-625. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1111/raq.12190
Mohapatra S, Chakraborty T, Prusty AK, Das P, Pani Prasad K, and Mohanta KN (2012). Use of different microbial probiotics in the diet of rohu, Labeo rohita fingerlings: Effects on growth, nutrient digestibility and retention, digestive enzyme activities and intestinal microflora. Aquaculture Nutrition, 18(1): 1-11. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2011.00866.x
Nayak SK (2010). Fish Probiotics and immunity: A fish perspective. Fish & Shellfish Immunology, 29(1): 2-14. DOI:
https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2010.02.017
—604
To cite this paper: Yaslikan NM, Yaminudin J, Rasdi NW, and Karim M (2023). Microfeed Incorporated with Probiotic for Aquaculture: A Review. World Vet. J., 13(4):
595-605. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.54203/scil.2023.wvj64
Padilla-Zakour OI (2009). Good manufacturing practices. In: N. Heredla, Irene Wesley, S. García, Edltors. Microbiologically Safe Foods. pp. 395-414 DOI: https ://www. dol. org/10.1002/9780470439074. ch20
Panlgrahl A and Azad IS (2007). Microbial intervention for better fish health in aquaculture: The Indian scenario. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry, 33: 429-440. DOI: https ://www. doi.org/10.1007/s 10б95-007-91б0-7
Plaza-Diaz J, Ruiz-Ojeda FJ, Gil-Campos M, and Gil A (2019). Mechanisms of action of probiotics. Advances in nutrition, 10(1): S49-S66. DOI: https ://www. doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmv0б3
Pilecky M, Závorka L, Arts MT, and Kainz MJ (2021). Omega-3 PUFA profoundly affect neural, physiological, and behavioural competences-Implications for systemic changes in trophic interactions. Biological Reviews, 96(5): 2127-2145. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.1111/brv.12747
Portella MC and Dabrowskl K (2008). Diets, physiology, biochemistry and digestive tract development of freshwater fish larvae. Feeding and digestive functions of fishes. pp. 227-279. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1201/b10749-7
Powell A, Hlnchcllffe J, Sundell K, Carlsson NG, and Eriksson SP (2017). Comparative survival and growth performance of European lobster larvae, Homarus gammarus, reared on dry feed and conspecifics. Aquaculture Research, 48(10): 5300-5310. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.1111/are.13343
Raiam R and Subramanian P (2022). Encapsulation of probiotics: Past, present and future. Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 11: 4б. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1186/s43088-022-00228-w
Rasdi NW, Arshad A, Ikhwanuddin M, Hagiwara A, Yusoff FM, and Azani N (2020). A review on the improvement of cladocera (Moina) nutrition as live food for aquaculture: Using valuable plankton fisheries resources. Journal of Environmental Biology, 41: 1239-1248. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.22438/jeb/41/5(sl)/ms 16
Rasdi NW, Ikhwannuddin M, Azani N, Ramlee A, Yuslan A, Suhaimi H, Ashaari U, and Arshad A(2020). The effect of different feeds on the growth, survival and reproduction of rotifer, Brachlonus pllcatllls. Journal of Environmental Biology. 41:1275-1280. DOI : https://www.doi.org/10.22438/ieb/41/5(SI)/MS 20
Rönnestad I, Yufera M, Ueberschär B, Ribeiro L, Sœle 0, and Bogllone C (2013). Feeding behaviour and digestive physiology in larval fish: Current knowledge, and gaps and bottlenecks in research. Reviews in Aquaculture, 5(1): S59-S98. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.1111/raQ.12010
Ringo E, Lovmo L, Kristiansen M, Bakken Y, Salinas I, Myklebust R, Olsen RE, and Mayhew TM (2010). Lactic acid bacteria vs. pathogens in the gastro-intestine of fish: a review. Aquaculture Research, 41(4): 451-467. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02339.x
Salminen S, Ouwehand AC, Benno Y, and Lee YK (1999). Probiotics how should they be defined. Trends Food Science and Technology, 10(3): 107-110. DOI: https ://www.doi. org/10.1016/s0924-2244(99)00027-8
Samat NA, Yusoff FM, Rasdi NW, Karim M (2021). The efficacy of Moina micrura enriched with probiotic Bacillus pocheonensis in enhancing survival and disease resistance of red hybrid tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) larvae. Antibiotics, 10(8): 989. DOI: https://dol.org/10.3390/antlblotlcs10080989
Santhanaraju Vairappan C (2021). Probiotic fortified seaweed silage as feed supplement in marine hatcheries. Advances in Probiotics, pp. 247-258. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-822909-5.00016-2
Sardi AE, Bégout ML, Lalles AL, Cousin X, and Budzinski H (2023). Temperature and feeding frequency impact the survival, growth, and metamorphosis success of Solea solea larvae. Plos One, 18(3): e0281193. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281193
Sherif AH, Gouda MY, Al-Sokary ET, and Elseify MM (2021). Lactobacillus plantarum enhances immunity of Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus challenged with Edwardsiella tarda. Aquaculture Research, 52(3): 1001-1012. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.1111/are.14955
Siddik MA, Sörensen M, Islam SM, Saha N, Rahman MA, and Francis DS (2023). Expanded utilisation of mlcroalgae in global aquafeeds. Reviews in Aquaculture. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.1111/raQ.12818
Soemarle YB, Mllanda T, and Barllana, MI (2021). Fermented foods as probiotics: A review. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research, 12(4): 335. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.4103/iaptr.iaptr 116 21
Song-Lin G, Jian-Jun F, Qiu-Hua Y, Rui-Zhang G, Yu W, and Pan-Pan L (2014). Immune effects of bathing European eels in live pathogenic bacteria, Aeromonas hydrophila. Aquaculture Research, 45(5): 913-921. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.1111/are.12035
Sörensen M (2012). A review of the effects of ingredient composition and processing conditions on the physical qualities of extruded high-energy fish feed as measured by prevailing methods. Aquaculture Nutrition, 18(3): 233-248. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2011.00924.x
Sun Q, Yin S, He Y, Cao Y, and Jiang C (2023). Biomaterials and Encapsulation Techniques for Probiotics: Current Status and Future Prospects in Biomedical Applications. Nanomaterlals, 13(15): 2185. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.3390/nano13152185
Taoka Y, Maeda H, Jo JY, Jeon MN, Bai SC, Lee WJ, Yuge K, and Koshlo S (2006). Growth, stress tolerance and non-specific immune response of Japanese flounder, Parallchthys ollvaceus to probiotics in a closed recirculating system. Fisheries Science, 72: 310-321. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.1111/i.1444-2906.2006.01152.x
Temlz U and Öztürk E (2018). Encapsulation methods and use in animal nutrition. Selcuk Journal of Agricultural and Food Sciences, 32(3): 624-631. DOI: https ://www. doi.org/10.15316/siafs. 2018.145
Vadstein O, Attramadal K, Bakke I, and Olsen Y (2018). K-Selectlon as Microbial Community Management Strategy: A Method for Improved Viability of Larvae in Aquaculture. Frontiers In Microbiology, 9. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.3389/fmlcb.2018.02730
Vivas M, Rubio VC, Sánchez-Vázquez FJ, Mena C, García García B, and Madrid JA (200б). Dietary self-selection in sharpsnout seabream (Diplodus Puntazzo) fed paired macronutrlent feeds and challenged with protein dilution. Aquaculture, 251(2-4): 430-437. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.1016/i.aquaculture.2005.06.013
Vivek K, Mishra S, Pradhan RC, Nagaraian M, Kumar PK, Singh SS, Manvi D, and Gowda NN (2022). A comprehensive review on microencapsulation of probiotics: Technology, carriers and current trends. Applied Food Research, 3(1): 100248. DOI: https://www.dol.org/10.1016/i.afres.2022.100248
Wang C, Chuprom J, Wang Y, and Fu L (2020). Beneficial bacteria for aquaculture: nutrition, bacteriostasis and immunoregulation. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 128(1): 28-40. DOI: https ://www.doi.org/10.1111/iam.14383
Watanabe T and Kiron V (1994). Prospects in larval fish dietetics. Aquaculture, 124(1 -4): 223-251. DOI: https ://www.doi. org/10.1016/0044-8486(94)903 86-7
Young-Hyo C, Jong-Keun K, Hong-Jong K, Won-Yong K, Young-Bae K, and Yong-Ha P (2001). Selection of a potential probiotic Lactobacillus strain and subsequent in-vivo studies. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, 80(2): 193-199. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1023/a:1012213728917
Publisher's note: Scienceline Publication Ltd. remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
0 Open Access: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2023
605
