12 minute read
Natural astaxanthin nutrition for better health and profitability
Current trends in the aquaculture feed industry are generating an increasing demand for natural and organic products due to new regulations, shifting market preferences, and consumer demands. One product that has seen a surge in interest is natural Astaxanthin from microalgae, particularly among premium brands and consumers (Guerin, 2019). Natural astaxanthin has struggled to position itself in the market because of unawareness of its superior antioxidant characteristics and health benefits and the lack of suppliers capable of satisfying demand in a timely and permanent manner. RedMeal is a whole meal rich in microalgal astaxanthin available for large-scale aquaculture that provides natural nutrition for increased health and better pigmentation.
A natural and potent antioxidant
Astaxanthin from microalgae Haematococcus pluvialis (Hp) is part of the natural pigments known as carotenoids, and it exhibits superior antioxidant properties to any known natural antioxidant. As a carotenoid, it can be used as a colorant while providing a wide range of health benefits. Hp astaxanthin is what gives salmon, crabs, shrimp, and flamingos their characteristic reddish color. This extraordinary molecule is the only type of Astaxanthin that has been present in the human and animal food chain for millennia. Astaxanthin is the only antioxidant protecting the cells from within, unlike other molecules such as B-Carotene, Vitamin C, and Vitamin E. This molecule spans the phospholipid bilayer creating a shield that attaches to the cellular membrane, protecting it against oxidative damage.
Hundreds of scientific studies and tests using Hp astaxanthin support its benefits and safety in animals in general and humans alike. Aquaculture is the following promising field where Hp astaxanthin can take over as the to-go choice for premium, all-natural nutrition.
Astaxanthin sources are not equal
Hp astaxanthin is, in many ways, a unique molecule as a result of three main factors.
Figure 1. Astaxanthin permeates and spans the cellular membrane.
Figure 2. Haematococcus pluvialis exclusively produces the (3S, 3’S) astaxanthin enantiomer.
First, and most important, molecules that share the same chemical formula can produce significantly different effects due to differences in structure and arrangement; this is called isomerism. The astaxanthin molecule has two asymmetric carbons that make three different isomers: (3S, 3’S), (3R, 3’S), and (3R, 3’R). Each of these differs in the direction in which they rotate polarized light, hence called optical isomers or enantiomers. Hp Astaxanthin is 100% (3S, 3’S) enantiomer, while synthetic is a mix of the three, adding isomers foreign to the natural food chain. Biochemical behavior can be very different when reacting with biologically active molecules that are also optical isomers, such as enzymes, amino acids, proteins, DNA, and sugars. Relevant to aquaculture, effects on the deposit and distribution of pigment in the flesh tissue are linked to isomerism. The strength and extent of the weak bond that binds the astaxanthin isomer to the actomyosin and alpha-actinin proteins of the fish muscle cells as well as to the crustacyanin protein of shrimps are affected by this phenomenon. Other functions that might be affected by non-natural isomers are the reproductive response, survival, growth, and immune modulation.
Hp microalgae produce not only astaxanthin but also a whole complex of substances to ensure its survival. This complex consists of 85% astaxanthin, 4% lutein, 6% beta-carotene, and 5% canthaxanthin. The concomitant substances work synergistically to enhance the effect of astaxanthin and thus provide a far more effective antioxidant effect than synthetic and fermented astaxanthin, which lack this carotenoid complex. Moreover, fermented astaxanthin contains two alien carotenoids not present in natural astaxanthin.
Finally, Hp astaxanthin comprises 95.7% esterified molecules (both mono- and di-esterified) and, consequently, is more stable (Yang et al., 2020). In contrast, both synthetic and fermented astaxanthins are free of esterification.
Altogether, the “nature identical” claim of astaxanthin that is not derived from microalgae is invalid, as exposed above. Moreover, there is evidence that the antioxidant activity is up to 90 times higher than synthetic, measured with the singlet oxygen quenching and free radical scavenging tests (Capelli et al., 2019).
Hp astaxanthin in aquaculture
Currently, astaxanthin is used to color salmon, trout, ornamental fish, and shrimp. However, synthetic dominates the market almost entirely due to its lower price. Hp astaxanthin is relegated to niche markets where “synthetic-free” labeling predominates or where synthetic astaxanthin does not work, such as the coloration of some shrimp species. However, new consumer trends and growing awareness among producers of the profits of increased health (survival, growth, reproduction, pigmentation) are driving an increasing demand for Hp astaxanthin.
The solution: RedMeal
Atacama Bio has formulated a product line for animal feed, RedMeal, which uses the entire Hp cell rich in astaxanthin and its supporting carotenoids. Furthermore, it is an excellent source of energy, proteins, carbohydrates, essential fatty acids, vitamins, nucleotides, and minerals, with the only astaxanthin that has always been in the natural food chain. RedMeal is offered in oil and powder formats, both perfectly
Table 1. Empirical evidence in shrimp farming using RedMeal.
Development Stage
Hatchery
Dose / kg of feed
Microalgae, rotifer, and Artemia enriched with RedMeal
Broodstock 40 gr of RedMeal
Larvae and postlarvae
Nursery PL12 to PL37
On-growing Microalgae, rotifer, and Artemia enriched with RedMeal
3 to 5 gr of RedMeal
3 to 5 gr of RedMeal
Results reported
Survival of postlarvae up to PL12 increased by 5-15%
Astaxanthin absorption seen as black color of body, no wounds / fast healing after crashing, overall healthy broodstock, active mating, better egg quality, and quantity
Vigorous PL12 with lipids in large dark hepatopancreas, excellent positive retroaxis
Noticeable stress resistance to low salinity, molting, and diseases with over 90% survival rate at PL37
Improved immunity within the 25 first days of supplementation, reaching up to color 27 on the salmon fan color scale
Figure 3. Litopenaeus vannamei shrimp fed with RedMeal. Courtesy of TMAC Company Ltd.
suitable for formulations intended for premium products because they are 100% natural. In addition, RedMeal can be used compliantly in diets containing non-GMO plant-based proteins and algal DHA to obtain a suite of health benefits, such as enhanced immunity, better reproduction rates, and less mortality, among others. It can also replace any additives used to obtain pigmentation, creating a superior market value due to differentiation by addressing public concern about synthetic and GMO products.
Trials supporting RedMeal
A consensus from our customers in the shrimp and premium trout industries is that the empirical evidence supports the science regarding the health benefits obtained besides pigmentation. Our products and formats have resulted in friendly handling and easy inclusion in diets and previous formulations with an excellent acceptance in their usage.
Conclusion
The growing chemical-free market creates new opportunities with free-range tendencies, environmental awareness, and respect for natural models. Products 100% natural and produced as nature intended have additional room for marketability and increased profitability. Atacama Bio has worked for over a decade to establish and strengthen a proprietary Hp astaxanthin production “as nature intended.” Using an optimal, costeffective production process with a minimal carbon footprint allows us to offer the best market prices for Hp astaxanthin products at the volumes the aquaculture industry needs.
References available on request.
More information: Patricio Hidalgo
Technical Sales Specialist Atacama Bio Natural Products S.A. E: phidalgo@atacamabionatural.com
My insect dilemma
Hans Boon
Hans Boon is founder of aquafeed consultancy company, Aquaculture Experience. Special thanks for the contribution of Karin van de Braak from Sustainable Aquaculture Solutions for input in this column. E: hboon@aquaculture-experience.com
Let us know what you think about insects in aquafeed at editor@aquafeed.com
Being involved in the aquaculture industry, it is impossible to ignore the global insect buzz. “Waste to Food”, the “Natural and sustainable alternative protein” and “Replacing fishmeal in aquafeed”, to name just a few of the insect meal quotes hinting at the permanent optimism about how insects and their larvae will soon tackle the global feed and food issues. It is very possible and likely that future generations will extend their diet with insects and in the short term, this applies small scale for our (agricultural) animals, including fish and shrimp from aquaculture.
As a fish nutritionist, I don’t like the wording “replacing fishmeal in aquafeed” in the first place. When formulating diets, we use the nutrient composition of all the ingredients at our disposal to compose the perfect formula that meets all the nutritional and physical requirements of the species that we want to grow, with or without fishmeal. For many, if not most, of the aquaculture species today it is not necessary to include fishmeal or fish oil in their diets. The “alternative ingredients” may be a bit costly and the end consumer is not always ready to pay the premium price for such farmed fish. Especially, the most widely farmed fish species, such as carp and tilapia, for instance, are fish that thrive on a vegetarian diet, possibly supplemented with some animal byproducts. On the other hand, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific publications on novel aquafeed ingredients to replace fishmeal so if scientists are “replacing fishmeal” it is no wonder that the insect sector uses the same vocabulary.
Insects have the potential to convert organic waste into high-value protein. This protein can be used as a feed ingredient for aquaculture or land animal production. Thus insects have a very strong point as a net producer of protein from “waste” materials. In the European Union, however, only feed grade raw materials are approved to feed farmed insects and thus these ingredients could also be used to feed farmed (land and aquatic) animals directly. In the European scenario, farming insects as an intermediate step in the feed chain is just adding another trophic level with a considerable energy waste as a result.
One may argue however that many agriculture byproducts are not suitable as a feed ingredient for many species due to their high content of carbohydrates, fiber and in some cases, anti-nutritional factors. Insects or their larvae are bio-converters that upgrade lower nutritional quality plant material to better utilizable feed ingredients. Actually, insect meal is already small scale successfully applied in salmon diets, for example.
Having said that, I also wonder if insects are the most efficient converters of agriculture waste and byproducts. How do they compare to, for example, single-cell protein sources such as fungi, bacteria and yeast? Especially bacteria, and to a lesser extent yeast, have proved their suitability as feed ingredient but also to exert health benefits that contribute to the efficiency of fish and shrimp production.
Outside the European Union, the picture is quite different where in many countries food waste may be used as a feed source for insects. In that case, insects are converters of “useless” byproducts and convert these into feed ingredients although still, the efficiency argument holds that other organisms may be more efficient converters than insects. Literature also shows the potential of Black Soldier Fly larvae (BSF) to convert animal manure as a component of waste management in low and middle-income countries.
Direct rendering of food waste streams such as poultry byproducts that are sometimes used as insect feed is from an energy perspective much more efficient. It
should be kept in mind that the production of insects requires energy as well, especially in mass production under fully controlled conditions. Afterward, they are processed to separate proteins from fats and dried (in the case of the meals) to increase shelf life and enable efficient distribution to (aqua) feed plants. Thus, to truly evaluate the sustainability of insect farming, the total energy balance should be considered.
Other environmental impacts of mass rearing of insects are largely unknown. More than in any other livestock production system, the risk of farmed insects (accidentally) escaping and interacting with wild local species is real. Such incidents could contribute to biodiversity loss while a globally rapid decline of specific insects is reported in scientific reviews.
Like in any innovative and especially high-density production system, farmed insects will at some point get diseases as well. Outstanding questions include whether reared insects that fall sick will get veterinary treatment and how, what are the risks of disease transmission to other insects and other animals, consumers or the environment? Other critical questions are on how insect wastes are disposed of and if and how animal welfare should be measured in insects as well.
Besides a sustainable source of protein, insects have also been presented as a cheap alternative. However, from an economic perspective at this moment insect meals are too expensive in Europe to compete with conventional feed ingredients (fishmeal, soybean meal, poultry byproduct meal, hemoglobin meal, etc.) or other innovative sources such as single-cell proteins (yeasts, bacteria and fungi), algae, plant proteinconcentrates, etc. Ingredient value for an aquafeed formulator is, first of all, determined by its profile of macro and micro-nutrients.
Additional aspects, such as carbon footprint, water consumption, rainforest-safe, GMO-free and total life cycle analysis are increasingly important and add value in feed formulations. These requirements need to be met, but successful implementation depends on whether the end consumer is prepared to pay a premium for the final product.
So insects (and any other potential alternative ingredients) compete in (aqua) feed formulas on many aspects, such as nutritional composition, sustainability aspects and public perception. Insect farming is still in its infancy and there are still many unknowns. Therefore, we need to be careful, but it also offers scope for innovations that make the sector more sustainable and ethical. We need to study and discuss things in a critical manner.
Let’s try to learn from the mistakes we made in the intensive farming systems, otherwise, we risk creating another industry that replaces one (environmental) problem with another. We still have the opportunity to get things right from the start. Let’s focus on an effective approach because we have also seen that it is much harder to undo the damage afterward.
My biggest dilemma with regards to the use of insects as an aquafeed ingredient is the ethical question of whether we should cultivate one animal to feed another animal. A growing part of the population, especially in the western world, is moving away from eating meat, fish and dairy products not in the last place because of ethical considerations, apart from environmental arguments of course. Introducing insects into aquafeed formulas in that context seems weird to me. On the contrary, I think that there may be a good scope for insects as a new food item. Insect burgers might be more acceptable by vegetarians, vegans or flexitarians than chicken nuggets or fish fingers.
30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE AQUAFEED INDUSTRY
Aquaculture Experience is the leading Dutch aquafeed consultancy. Hans Boon of Aquaculture Experience offers independent consultancy services to the international aquafeed and aquaculture industry. • AquaFEED • Aquafeed
INGREDIENTS • Aquafeed
BUSINESS
Aquaculture Experience
AQUACULTURE-EXPERIENCE.COM
Aquaculture Experience
