was 2011 shrimp sensorial test - krill oil
TRANSCRIPT
1
Otavio S. Castro¹, Alberto J. P. Nunes¹, Sigve Nordrum, Marcelo V. C. Sá¹
Marine Science Institute (LABOMAR)Federal University of Ceará
WAS 2011
Natal, Brazil
June 09, 2011
Feed Manipulation¹
• Screening feed ingredients to attain
target desired characteristics
• Product color, flavor, qualitative
composition etc...
Consumer Behaviour¹
• Organoleptic Characteristics:
Standards of Quality and Freshness
• Willingness to pay more
• Healthier diet and lifestyle
Omega-3 Fatty Acids³
• Human health benefits
• Enrichment of Poultry eggs; Milk,
Meat, Broiler, Pork etc..
• Aquaculture Products
¹(SYLVIA et al., 1996; LING et al., 1999; WOOD et al., 2005; STEINE, ALFNES & RØRÅ, 2005; ALFNES et al., 2006; SIDHU, 2003); ²(UAUY, 1996; SIMOPOULOS, 1999; LEE et al, 2006:
PHETTPLACE & WATKINS, 1989; OFFER et al., 1999; KOOK et al., 2002; CACHALDORA et al., 2008))
3
Rationale
Farm-Raised X Wild-Caught *
Fresh Water X Marine Species*
Naturally Enriched X Artificially*
Adding Value and/or Marketing
Segmentation Opportunities to
Aqua-products
*(MEYERS, 1994; VISENTAINER, 2003; TURCHINI et al., 2007; SHAPIRA et al., 2009; ALFNES et al., 2006)
To evaluate if Krill oil (QRILL™, Aker
Biomarine ASA, Oslo, Norway)
inclusion in experimental diets can
improve consumer’s acceptance of
white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei
cooked tails.
4
Experimental SiteLANOA – Laboratory of Aquatic Animals NutritionCEAC – Costal and Environmental Studies Center (LABOMAR/UFC)
5
Figures 1 and 2 – Aerial view of the Laboratory of Aquatic Animal Nutrition Facility
(LANOA). Situated on the Pacoti River Estuary, Eusébio Municipal district (25 km far from
the Fortaleza City – Ceará State). Geographic coordinates 35º00’0,25’’S e 38º25’22,57’’W
.
Foto: Alberto J. P. Nunes
21
Rearing System50 Indoor Clear Water Tanks (500 L total water volume with total bottom
area of 0.57 m²)10 cells with 5 tanks - 14-h water filtering and recirculation regime with continuous
water aeration.
Fig. 3 – Indoor tanks at LANOA/LABOMAR where the
krill oil evaluation was conducted with the white
shrimp L. vannamei. Fig. 4 – Internal view of stocked
experimental tank. 6
3
4
Photo: Otávio S. Castro
Photo: Otávio S. Castro
Experimental Design4 Isonutritive Diets except in regards to the fatty acid content
3 Lipid Sources: Marine fish oil (Engraulis ringers), Antartic
Krill oil (Euphausia superba) and Soybean oil (Glycine max)
7
Table 1: Experimental Diets Design
TratamentFatty Acid Requirements* Main Lipid
Source4LOA and LNA¹ EPA and DHA²
T1 (FISH) Satisfied Satisfied Fish Oil
T2 (KRILL) Satisfied Satisfied Krill Oil³
T3 (SOY) Satisfied 50% Deficient Soybean Oil
T4 (KRILL+) Satisfied 25% Above Krill Oil³
*based on 80% of that required by Penaeus monodon - Glencross & Smith (1997, 1999, 2001)
and Glencross et. al (2002a,b)
¹LOA: Linoleic acid (C18:2n-6) and LNA: Linolenic acid (C18:3n-3)
²EPA: Eicosapentaenoic acid (C20:5n-3) and DHA: Docosahexaenoic acid (C22:6n-3)
³ QRILL™ oil, Aker Biomarine ASA (Oslo, Norway) 4Soybean oil was included on the diets FISH, KRILL and KRILL+ in order to meet the LOA and
LNA requirements
Feed ManufacturingSmall scale laboratory process,
Laboratory of Aquatic Animals Nutrition of LABOMAR, Brazil
8
INGREDIENTS MILL
400 µmCOOKING – 90ºC, 25
min.EXTRUSION – 2mm
OVEN DRYING –
70ºC, 3 h
PELLET GRINDING
5mm
SIEVING STORAGING-22ºC
3 MIXTURES
Diets Allotment6 replicate tanks were assigned for each treatment
Random block design
9
Ingredients (g kg-1 diet)
Diet
FISH SOY KRILL KRILL+
Soybean meal 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0
Wheat flour 298.7 300.0 299.8 291.5
Poultry by-product meal 100.0 105.0 100.0 67.5
Fishmeal, Anchovy 60.2 70.6 71.6 68.9
Rice broken 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
Soybean protein concentrate 32.5 16.6 19.1 20.0
Fish oil 26.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Krill oil 0.0 0.0 48.3 55.0
Soybean oil 10.0 34.5 4.4 3.8
Soybean lecithin 15.0 15.0 0.0 0.0
Cholesterol 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.4
Squid meal, whole 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Phosphate monodicalcium 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0
Potassium chloride (KCl) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Salt common 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Vitamin-mineral premix 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Corn gluten meal, 65% CP 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0
DL-methionine, crystalline,
99%8.0 8.0 8.0
4.6
Synthetic binder 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Ascorbic acid polyphosphate 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.3
10
Table 2: Ingredient composition of the experimental diets
Experimental Diets
• Minimum Cost Formulation
• Software Feedsoft
Professional 3.1
11
Table 3: Nutritional levels of experimental diets
Composition(g kg-1 diet)Diet
FISH SOY KRILL KRILL+
Crude Protein1,2 351.8 353.5 354.4 353.1
Crude Fat1 88.8 80.8 90.0 91.3
Fiber1,2 12.0 13.3 9.0 12.0
Ash1 93.7 91.0 89.5 82.3
Calcium1,5 10.1 10.4 10.6 9.0
Total Phosporus1,5 8.8 8.6 9.0 7.9
Phospholipidis1,3 14.25 14.00 14.25 15.95
Cholesterol1,3 1.70 1.70 2.97 1.50
Gross Energy (kcal/kg) 1,4 4,184 4,273 4,209 4,3601 AOAC,1990² Amino acid requirements - Akiyama, Dominy & Lawrence (1992) e Fox, Lawrence & Li-Chanb
(1995)
³Phospholipids and Cholesterol: Gong et al. (2000)4Gross Energy: Cousin et al., (1993) 5Calcium and Phosphorus: Davis, Lawrence & Gatlin (1993)
Starch: Cuzon et al. (2000)
Experimental Diets
12
Table 4. Fatty acid profile² and astaxanthin content³ of the experimental feeds
Experimental Diets
Composition(g kg-1 diet)¹Diet
FISH SOY KRILL KRILL+
Crude Fat (g kg-1 diet) 88.80 94.00 80.80 91.30
Fatty Acid Profile (% of Crude Fat)²
C12:0 (ácido láurico) 0,0 0,0 0,59 0,67
C14:0 (ác. mirístico) 3,56 0.98 12,29 13,99
C16:0 (ácido palmítico) 20,39 17,84 23,49 26,75
C16:1 cis (ácido palmitoléico) 5,28 2,07 10,73 12,22
C18:0 (ácido esteárico) 4,70 4,45 3,76 3,24
C18:1 cis (ácido oléico) 15,59 16,03 14,07 12,20
C18:2 cis (ácido linoléico) – LOA 28,32 44,71 16,21 13,96
C18:3 cis (ácido linolênico) – LNA 3,40 4,91 1,52 1,31
C20:4n6 (ácido araquidônico) – ARA 0,38 0,0 0,0 0,0
C20:5n3 (ác. eicosapentaenóico) – EPA 5,09 0,65 5,34 6,80
C22:6n3 (ác. docosahexaenóico) – DHA 2,54 0,28 1,59 1,81
Sum PUFA 8,01 0,93 6,93 8,61
Sum LOA+LNA 31,72 49,62 17,73 15,72
PUFA/LOA+LNA Ratio 0,25 0,02 0,39 0,55
Sum EFA 39,72 50,55 24,66 24,42
Esterified Astaxanthin (ug/100 ul)³ 14,70 13,80 21,40 24,70
¹ Analyzed according to AOAC (1990) by Animal Nutrition Laboratory from Federal University of Ceará State, Fortaleza, CE,
Brazil. ²Analyzed by gas chromatography method in the Laboratory of Biochemistry and Instrumental Analysis from São Paulo
University (USP), Piracicaba, SP, Brazil. ³ Analyzed by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) by Plant
Morphogenesis and Biochemistry Laboratory from Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Experimental Period64 days of rearing on experimental diets
13
Fig. 8 – Feed tray used on the
experimental feeding period.
Feeding Management
• Feed offer: daily at 7:30 and 16:00 h
• 1 Feed trail per tank - 14.3 x 3.5 cm
(diameter x height)
Water Quality
• Salinity: 44,0 ± 0,2 ‰
• pH: 7,35 ± 0,31
• Temperature: 27,5 ± 0,46 ºC
Shrimp Weight
• Initial: 2,79 ± 0,6 g
• Final: 11,4 ± 2,0 g (At harvest)
8
Photo: Otávio S. Castro
Sensorial TrialBest-worse scaling methodology with 4 dietary treatments (JAEGER
et. al, 2008)
20 Non-trained panelists (10 men and 10 women) – 4 Taste Sets with 3
shrimps
14
SHRIMP # TASTE SET SAMPLE TASTE PLATE NUMBER DIET
1
1
B 1 KRIL+
2 C 2 KRILL
3 A 3 FISH
4
2
D 1 SOY
5 A 2 FISH
6 B 3 KRILL+
7
3
A 1 FISH
8 D 2 SOY
9 C 3 KRILL
10
4
C 1 KRILL
11 B 2 KRILL+
12 D 3 SOY
TABLE 5. Experimental set-up of the best-worse scaling sensory test
to evaluate the dietary effect of oil source an inclusion
level on shrimp tail color, texture and flavor.
Sensorial TrialTest procedures:
• 240 shrimps: 60 for each treatment (11,4 ± 2,0 g, n = 48)
• Defrosting (After 1-week period: -22ºC), De-heading and Mineral
Water Rinsing
• 5-min Boiling in Water (3,3 mg/ml NaCl)
• Panelists Instruction – Test procedures
• Panelists Tasting and Evaluation
Fig. 1 – Example of a referee form used in the best-worse scaling sensory test to evaluate
shrimp tail sensory characteristics. Colored “X’s” exemplify how forms were filled..15
SET ONE
COLOR TEXTURE FLAVOR
LEAST
LIKEDSHRIMP
MOST
LIKED
LEAST
LIKEDSHRIMP
MOST
LIKED
LEAST
LIKEDSHRIMP
MOST
LIKED
X 1 1 X X 1
2 X 2 2
3 X 3 3 X
Note: Note: Note:
1 2 3
16
COLOR TEXTURE FLAVOR
PANELIST FISH KRILL SOY KRILL+ FISH KRILL SOY KRILL+ FISH KRILL SOY KRILL+
1 -1 2 -3 2 0 1 -1 0 2 0 -3 1
2 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 -1 0 -3 0 0 3
3 0 1 -3 2 0 0 2 -2 -1 1 0 0
4 -1 1 -1 1 1 0 0 -1 1 -2 1 0
5 -2 1 -2 3 2 2 -2 -2 0 2 -3 1
6 -1 2 -3 2 1 -2 3 -2 2 -1 0 -1
7 -1 3 -3 1 0 -1 1 0 -1 0 2 -1
8 0 2 -3 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -2 0 1
9 -3 1 -1 3 0 1 -1 0 0 2 -1 -1
10 -2 0 -1 3 0 -1 -1 2 -2 2 -2 2
11 -3 1 -1 3 0 -2 1 1 0 -1 0 1
12 -2 1 -2 3 2 1 0 -3 -1 2 -1 0
13 -1 1 -2 2 2 -1 -2 1 -1 -1 -1 3
14 1 0 -3 2 0 2 -1 -1 0 0 1 -1
15 1 0 0 -1 2 -1 -2 1 1 2 -3 0
16 -2 2 0 0 -2 1 1 0 -2 1 1 0
17 -1 1 -3 3 0 0 -2 2 -2 2 0 0
18 0 0 -2 2 -1 -2 3 0 1 -1 0 0
19 -2 3 -2 1 0 3 -1 -2 1 0 -3 2
20 -2 -1 0 3 -1 0 0 1 1 -1 -1 1
TOTAL
SCORE-21 23 -37 35 7 1 -4 -4 -3 5 -13 11
Table 6 - B-W scores, each value represent the sum of three evaluated
tastes for each sample. Positive choices valued +1, neuter choice valued 0
and negative choice valued -1, B-W did vary between -3 and +3.
Results and Discussion
¹ Aggregate values of Best-worse scores for Shrimp Color
Preference. Values represents the sum of B-W scores of 20
judgers for each sample, different letters in the bar denote
significant difference at the = 0.05 level by Mann-Whitney U test
for frequency of choices.17
ab
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
- 21
23
- 37
35
BE
ST-W
OR
SE
SC
AL
E
CONSUMERS COLOR PREFERENCE ¹
KRILL+
SOY
KRILL
FISH
a
c
c
b
18
ab
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
7
1
- 4 - 4BE
ST-W
OR
SE
SC
AL
E
CONSUMERS TEXTURE PREFERENCE ¹
KRILL+SOY
KRILLFISH
¹ Aggregate values of Best-worse scores for Shrimp Texture
Preference. Values represents the sum of B-W scores of 20
judgers for each sample, different letters in the bar denote
significant difference at the = 0.05 level by Mann-Whitney U test
for frequency of choices.
19
MOLT STAGEFISH
(%)
SOY
(%)
KRILL
(%)
KRILL+
(%)
A - (early postmolt) - 8.33 8.33 16.67
B - (late postmolt) 16.67 16.67 8.33 25.00
C - (intermolt) 8.33 25.00 8.33 -
D0 - (onset of premolt) 16.67 - 33.33 16.67
D1 - (early premolt) 16.67 33.33 41.67 8.33
D2 - (intermediate
premolt)8.33 8.33 - 16.67
D3 - (late premolt) 33.33 8.33 - 16.67
E - (molt) - - - -
TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
TABLE 6. Shrimp Molt Stages observed in experimental shrimp
samples according to Oliveira Cesar et al. (2006); the
setogenesis of the endopodite of the shrimp uropod
were analyzed (n = 12 for each treatment).
Results and Discussion
20
¹ Aggregate values of Best-worse scores for Shrimp Flavor
Preference. Values represents the sum of B-W scores of 20
judgers for each sample, different letters in the bar denote
significant difference at the = 0.05 level by Mann-Whitney U test
for frequency of choices.
ab
KRILL+SOJA
KRILLPEIXE
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
- 3
5
- 13
11
BE
ST
-WO
RS
E S
CA
LE
CONSUMERS FLAVOR PREFERENCE ¹
KRILL+
SOY
KRILL
FISH
a
ab
c
bc
21
¹ Aggregate values of Best-worse scores for Shrimp Color
Preference. Values represents the sum of B-W scores of 20
judgers for each sample, different letters in the bar denote
significant difference at the = 0.05 level by Mann-Whitney U test
for frequency of choices.
ab
KRILL+SOJA
KRILLPEIXE
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
- 3
5
- 13
11
BE
ST
-WO
RS
E S
CA
LE
CONSUMERS FLAVOR PREFERENCE¹
KRILL+
SOY
KRILL
FISH
a
ab
c
bc
Spearman’s
Correlation Test:
Flavor Responses vs.
Color Responses =
No significance (0.10)
22
Fatty Acid Profile of Shrimp Tails
Fatty Acid Profile (% of total
Crude Fat)
Diets
PXE SJA KRL KRL+
C12:0 (ácido láurico) - - - 0.88
C14:0 (ác. mirístico) 29.03 24.63 27.16 27.18
C16:0 (ácido palmítico) 1.46 0.48 3.02 2.90
C16:1 cis (ácido palmitoléico) 0.99 0.60 1.21 1.04
C17:0 (ác. heptadecanóico) 12.04 11.59 10.98 10.25
C18:0 (ácido esteárico) 11.62 11.05 12.94 11.79
C18:1 cis (ácido oléico) 14.93 26.94 11.10 11.53
C18:2 cis (ácido linoléico) 0.63 1.30 0.54 -
C18:3 cis (ácido linolênico) - - - -
C20:1 cis (ác.cis-11-eicosanóico) - 1.80 0.76 0.74
C20:4n6 (ácido araquidônico) 1.74 1.33 0.94 1.20
C20:5n3 (ác. eicosapentaenóico) 10.10 6.60 11.50 13.92
C22:6n3 (ác. docosahexaenóico) 5.34 3.53 4.22 5.66
SUM PUFA4 15.44 10.13 15.72 19.58
SUM LOA+LNA5 15.56 28.24 11.64 11.53
PUFA/LOA+LNA Ratio 0.99 0.36 1.35 1.70
SUM EFA6 31.00 38.37 27.36 31.11
• Results Agree with:
Guary et al. (1976)
- M. japonicus
Catacutan (1991);
Kumaraguru Vasagam,
Ramesh &
Balasubramanian (2005)
- P. monodon
González-Félix et al.
(2002c, 2003); Hurtado
et al. (2006) - L.
vannamei
• FLAVOR:
Waagbø et al. (1993)
Positive Associations with
organoleptics characteriscs
in salmon filetswith
enhanced Omega-3 fatty
acids levels.
23
ab
KRILL+SOJA
KRILLPEIXE
• Krill oil utilization in L. vannamei feeds
enhances consumer acceptance for the
color and flavor attributes in shell-on
shrimp cooked tails.
24
ab
KRILL+SOJA
KRILLPEIXE
FURTHER SUGGESTIONS
• Dose-response Test
• Lower effective dose/response to promote
changes in shrimp tails
• Minimum feeding period necessary
• Optimization of formulae costs
• Marketing study:
• Wich class of products have the greatest
potential of valorization?
• Who will be the consumers and how much
more they will pay for the new differentiated
product?
• Production Viability: Logistics; Additional
costs vs. Additional profits
THANK YOU!!!Gracias!!! Obrigado!!!
Merci Beaucoup!!!
[email protected][email protected]
+55 65 8159-4303 / 8112-0109
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......AKER BIOMARINE ASA, CNPq, LANOA staffs,
LABOMAR/Federal University of Ceará; EVIALIS