Whole‐body amino acid pattern of juvenile, preadult, and adult pacu, Piaractus mesopotamicus, with an estimation of its dietary essential amino acid requirements

Abstract

In the present study, juvenile (live body weight, 54.3 ± 8.2 g), preadult (live body weight, 822.5 ± 33.9 g), and adult (live body weight, 1,562.8 ± 41.8 g) pacu, Piaractus mesopotamicus, were used to estimate their dietary essential amino acid (EAA) requirements using the whole‐body amino acid (AA) pattern. The results showed that whole‐body moisture, crude protein, total lipid, and ash contents expressed on a wet weight basis (%) were significantly different among the studied growth phases. No significant differences were observed in the dietary EAA requirements estimated for the three growth phases of pacu. These dietary EAA requirements were found to be different than those previously estimated for the same fish through its muscle AA pattern. Based on whole‐body EAA to total EAA ratios {A/E ratios; [(each EAA/total EAA) × 1,000]}, EAA requirements were estimated to be histidine (0.42%), arginine (1.36%), threonine (0.82%), valine (0.90%), methionine (0.45%), isoleucine (0.83%), leucine (1.29%), phenylalanine (0.74%), lysine (1.64%), and tryptophan (0.14%) for pacu. These estimated requirements may serve as a reference line in the formulation of practical and experimental diets until dose–response‐based optimum EAA requirements are available for pacu.

Assessment of the ideal ratios of digestible essential amino acids for pacu,Piaractus mesopotamicus, juveniles by the amino acid deletion method

“…The methionine and phenylalanine levels (1.49 and 2.78 g/16 g N, respectively) estimated in the present study were found to be lower than those (average values; 3.10 ± 0.67 and 5.17 ± 0.76 g/16 g N, respectively) by Green and Hardy (2002), Rollin et al (2003), Peres and Oliva‐Teles (2009), Diógenes et al (2016), and Marammazi et al (2017). The lysine in the previous studies with different fish species (Diógenes et al, 2016; Green & Hardy, 2002; Marammazi et al, 2017; Peres & Oliva‐Teles, 2009; Rollin et al, 2003) presented an average value of 5.38 ± 0.37 g/16 g N while in the present study it was estimated as 10.22 g/16 g N. Similarly, the proposed EAA profile of this study was compared with those previously reported by Abimorad et al (2010) in a lysine dose–response assay through muscle tissue AA composition and Khan et al (2020) based on whole–body AA composition in pacu (Figure 3). The lysine level obtained in the present study was 26.28 g/kg DM as compared to the finding (17.05 ± 0.92 g/kg dry matter basis) of Abimorad et al (2010) and Khan et al (2020).…”

“…The lysine in the previous studies with different fish species (Diógenes et al, 2016; Green & Hardy, 2002; Marammazi et al, 2017; Peres & Oliva‐Teles, 2009; Rollin et al, 2003) presented an average value of 5.38 ± 0.37 g/16 g N while in the present study it was estimated as 10.22 g/16 g N. Similarly, the proposed EAA profile of this study was compared with those previously reported by Abimorad et al (2010) in a lysine dose–response assay through muscle tissue AA composition and Khan et al (2020) based on whole–body AA composition in pacu (Figure 3). The lysine level obtained in the present study was 26.28 g/kg DM as compared to the finding (17.05 ± 0.92 g/kg dry matter basis) of Abimorad et al (2010) and Khan et al (2020). Beside the different methods followed by Abimorad et al (2010) and Khan et al (2020) for the estimation of dietary EAAs (Figure 3) no considerable differences were observed between the two EAA profiles.…”

“…The essential AA requirements of unknown species or the quality of dietary protein is usually determined on the basis of ideal protein concept through several methods such as hen whole‐egg protein (Kim, Elliott, & Bayles, 1983), fish egg (Ketola, 1983), and ovarian tissue (Ketola, 1982) as well as muscle tissue (Abimorad, Favero, Squassoni, & Carneiro, 2010; Cowey & Luquet, 1983) or whole‐body fish (Arai, 1981; Khan et al, 2020). The concept of estimating EAA requirements of fish based on the AA composition of fish body has been widely practiced in fish nutrition (Rollin, Mambrini, Abboudi, Larondelle, & Kaushik, 2003).…”

“…It has a rapid growth rate, with the ability of survivorship at low temperatures (Cáleta et al, 2011) and being an omnivorous fish could efficiently utilize diets of various chemical compositions (Abimorad & Carneiro, 2004, 2007; Abimorad, Squassoni, & Carneiro, 2008; Fernandes, Carneiro, & Sakomura, 2000, 2001). The available EAA requirements of pacu have been determined on the basis of the ideal protein concept (Abimorad et al, 2010; Khan et al, 2020). However, to overcome the limitations associated with the ideal protein and dose–response methods, the AA deletion method has been efficiently used as an alternative by several authors for the estimation of ideal profile of EAAs in different fish species (Marammazi et al, 2017).…”

Ideal profile of essential amino acids for Nile tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus ) in the finishing growth phase

“…For the estimation of ideal profile of amino acids, some methods have been previously tested in fish such as the deletion, dose–response, whole‐body and muscle tissue‐based amino acid analysis and meta‐analysis (Abimorad, Favero, Castellani, Garcia, & Carneiro, 2009; Diógenes et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2020; Peres & Oliva–Teles, 2009). The dose–response method is commonly used to estimate the amino acid requirements but it is very time consuming because at least 10 experimental trials are necessary to conduct to know the requirements of all essential amino acid (Diógenes et al., 2016; Dorigam, 2016; Green & Hardy, 2002; Peres & Oliva–Teles, 2009; Rollin et al., 2003).…”