Behavioral response to selected feed attractants and stimulants in Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei

Abstract

Nine commercial feeding attractants and stimulants for Litopenaeus vannamei were evaluated by observation of behavioral responses in animals allotted in one Y-maze aquarium apparatus. In the validation phase, fishmeal–Brazilian origin (FMBO); fishmeal–Peruvian origin (FMPO); blood meal (BM), meat and bone meal (MBM), squid meal (SM), fish oil (FO) and fish solubles (FS) were evaluated. There was also a control without stimulatory raw material. The tested materials were included at 3% in neutral gelatin pellets (wet basis). In each behavioral observation, two different ingredients were offered at the same time in equal quantities, being allotted in the end of each chamber's arm. In Phase II after system validation, the following commercial attractants were tested: 80% crude protein (CP) vegetable dried biomass (VDB80), 68% CP vegetable dried biomass+ glutamate+ betaine (VDB68), complex of amino acids (alanine, valine, glycine, proline, serine, histidine, glutamic acid, tyrosine and betaine) with enzymatically digested bivalve mollusk (CAA), condensed fish soluble protein (CFSP), squid liver meal (SLM), betaine (Bet), dried fish solubles–low biogenic amines (DFSLB), dried fish solubles–high biogenic amines (DFSHB) and whole squid protein hydrolysate (WSPH). Attractants were used at a 3% level wet basis with neutral gelatin, without any additional ingredient source available. The best four commercial attractants from this phase (CAA, CFSP, SLM and WSPH) were compared under 0.5% and 1.0% levels. In Phase I of the study, a higher percentage of choices were observed for FMPO and FMBO. BM and FO were the least chosen ingredients. In Phase II, the worst results were observed for Bet, DFSHB and, mainly, for VDB80 and VDB68. When two-by-two comparisons were performed, results suggested that CFSP and CAAwere the best commercial attractants tested. In the last phase, both CFSP and CAA at 1.0% level were significantly more chosen by shrimp than CFSP (0.5%), SLM (0.5 or 1.0%) or WSPH (0.5 or 1.0%). At both 0.5% and 1.0% levels, shrimp spent a similar amount of time feeding on CFSP and CAA. However, only CAA was statistically better than SLM and WSPH together. Further work is required to better elucidate the chemical drivers of chemostimulation for L. vannamei for each one of the attractants tested.