Abstract
Aquaculture industries, and in particular the farming of fish and crustaceans, are major contributors to the economy of many countries and an increasingly important component in global food supply. However, the severe impact of aquatic microbial diseases on production performance remains a challenge to these industries. This article considers the potential applications of microalgal technology in the control of such diseases. At the simplest level, microalgae offer health-promoting benefits as a nutritional supplement in feed meal because of their digestibility and high content of proteins, lipids and essential nutrients. Furthermore, some microalgal species possess natural anti-microbial compounds or contain biomolecules that can serve as immunostimulants. In addition, emerging genetic engineering technologies in microalgae offer the possibility of producing ‘functional feed additives’ in which novel and specific bioactives, such as fish growth hormones, anti-bacterials, subunit vaccines, and virus-targeted interfering RNAs, are components of the algal supplement. The evaluation of such technologies for farm applications is an important step in the future development of sustainable aquaculture.
Highlights
According to a 2016 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), aquaculture marine food production has dramatically increased in the years since 1994, while capture fishery yields have remained relatively unchanged [1]
This study revealed a marked decrease in bacterial mobility with elongation and vacuolisation of the cells, which resulted in an inhibition of bacterial growth
Public acceptance of products from aquaculture animals that have been reared using genetically modified (GM) feed ingredients is a significant consideration. This is especially relevant if the product is being marketed as ‘healthy’ and ‘sustainable’, in which case, a “GM-free” certification might have more value to the company than the benefits afforded by a GM-based functional feed
Summary
According to a 2016 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), aquaculture marine food production has dramatically increased in the years since 1994, while capture fishery yields have remained relatively unchanged [1]. Whilst intra-parenteral or intra-muscular delivery by injection minimizes vaccine wastage and ensures effective administration of a known amount, the process of capturing, handling, anesthetizing, and injecting the fish is very labor-intensive and costly and can cause injury to the fish It is not feasible for small, juvenile fish or for crustaceans and impractical when repeat vaccinations are required. Variation in feeding between individual animals results in a Poisson distribution of the received dose All of these factors mean that significantly more vaccine is required than for injection, and robust methods for DNA or antigen encapsulation are needed to allow efficient delivery to the immune tissue [13]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call