THE USE OF AUTOMATED FEEDING SYSTEMS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PACIFIC WHITE SHRIMP Litopenaeus vannamei: A RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE

Davis, D. A.*, C. Ullman, M. Rhodes, R. Novriadi, and A. Swanepoel
 
School of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Aquatic Sciences
Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
davisda@auburn.edu
 

The continued success of shrimp aquaculture will rely on improvements in feed management and reductions in the labor requirements for production. As grazers, shrimp have shown increased performance with multiple feedings spread throughout the day, but the labor required to increase the feedings can be prohibitive to some operations. Utilizing timer feeders and acoustic demand feeders allow farmers to spread out the feeding without increasing the labor required to do so. The acoustic monitors also allow feeding activity to be monitored to improve feed application during times of active feeding. Feed management applications can also dictate the water quality within a pond also resulting in poor performance. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare feed management strategies in pond culture of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) to evaluate the effects of feeding rates on the growth performance, production, water quality and economic returns. Four feed management techniques were evaluated over a two-year period. In both years a 16-week production cycle using 16, 0.1Ha ponds that were stocked at 17 shrimp/m2 or 38 shrimp/m2 at the Claude Peteet Mariculture Center, Gulf Shores, Alabama, USA. In both years, feed management up to week 4 was essentially identical then the various feeding protocols were implemented. In year 1 we evaluated 2 treatments with hand feeding using the Standard Feeding Protocol (SFP) and manual feeding twice per day. SFP was calculated with a predicted growth of 1.3 g/wk, and an estimated feed conversion ratio (FCR) of 1.2, assuming a survival rate of 75%. This included a standard ration as well as a 15 % increase to the ration from 8-16 weeks. Two treatments utilized automatic feeders, one treatment included a timer feeder, which fed the SFP+15% divided into 6 feedings/day and the other used AQ1 acoustic demand feeding which allowed up to 120 kg/ha/day based on shrimps feeding activity. Significant increases in final weights were seen using the timer and acoustic feeders (28.66 and 35.91 g respectively) when compared to the SFP and SFP + 15% (23.55 and 24.65 g respectively). The AQ1 treatment also resulted in significantly higher shrimp value ($21,198/ha) than the other treatments ($11,776 - $13,446/ha). No significant differences were seen in survival (72.2 ± 5.99%), FCR (1.03 ± 0.095), or water quality. In year 2 shrimp were stocked at 38 shrimp/m2 and cultured over a 13 week pond production cycle. Four treatments evaluating one hand feeding treatment using our SFP. Two treatments utilized automatic timed feeder delivering feed at 115 and 130% of the SFP. The fourth treatment utilized the AQ1 acoustic demand feeding which is feeding on demand during the day with a 150 kg/ha/day limit. Final weight were 19.74, 25.2, 27.5 and 32.0g; final yield was 4843, 5629, 6416 and 7430 kg/ha and FCR were 1.13, 1.12, 1.07 and 1.24 for our SFP, Auto feeder 115%, 130% and the AQ1 systems, respectively. In general, increasing feed inputs without subsequent increase in the number of feedings did not improve shrimp growth. The use of automated feeding systems (which increase the number of feedings) improved production incrementally with feed inputs. Increases in feed input, application of the technology and training of people to maintain the new system must all be considered when evaluating these technologies.