Alternative Feed Potential of Goldfish (Carassius auratus) Based Biofloc in the Nutrition of Freshwater Crayfish (Pontastacus leptodactylus) Juveniles

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the potential of goldfish (Carassius auratus)-based biofloc technology (BFT) biomass as an alternative feed source for freshwater crayfish (Pontastacus leptodactylus) juveniles. The experiment was conducted in a closed recirculating system over seven weeks, with four feeding groups and four replicates per group: control (commercial trout feed only), BFT (0.75 mL/L) + commercial feed, low-dose BFT (0.75 mL/L), and high-dose BFT (1.5 mL/L). Growth performance, specific growth rate (SGR), feed intake (FI), feed conversion ratio (FCR), and survival rate were assessed at the end of the trial. The results demonstrated that biofloc biomass alone was insufficient as a nutritional source for juveniles, with groups fed exclusively on biofloc exhibiting high mortality. In contrast, the combined application of biofloc and commercial feed did not adversely affect growth performance or survival rate, suggesting that biofloc may serve as a supplementary dietary additive. Water quality analyses revealed elevated nitrogen compound concentrations in biofloc tanks; however, pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature remained within acceptable ranges throughout the trial. In conclusion, while biofloc biomass alone proved inadequate as a sole feed source for crustacean juveniles, its use in combination with commercial feed may represent a biologically and economically viable supplementary feeding strategy.

Keywords

• Biofloc technology
• freshwater crayfish
• Pontastacus leptodactylus
• Carassius auratus
• growth performance

Tatlı Su Kereviti Juvenillerinin Beslenmesinde Japon Balığı Tabanlı Bioflok’un Alternatif Yem Potansiyeli

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Japon balığı (Carassius auratus) tabanlı bioflok (BFT) biyokütlesinin tatlı su kereviti (Pontastacus leptodactylus) larvalarında alternatif bir yem kaynağı olarak kullanılabilirliğini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Deneme, dört farklı besleme grubu ve dört tekrar ile 7 hafta boyunca kapalı devre sistemde yürütülmüş olup gruplar şunlardır: kontrol (yalnızca ticari alabalık yemi), BFT (0,75 mL/L) + ticari yem, BFT düşük doz (0,75 mL/L) ve BFT yüksek doz (1,5 mL/L). Denemeler sonucunda büyüme performansı, spesifik büyüme oranı (SGR), yem alımı ve yem dönüşüm oranı (FCR) ile yaşama oranları incelenmiştir. Bulgular, bioflokun tek başına larvalar için yeterli bir besin kaynağı olmadığını, yalnızca bioflok ile beslenen gruplarda mortalitenin yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir. Ticari yem ile kombine edilen bioflok uygulaması ise büyüme ve yaşama oranı üzerinde olumsuz etki yaratmamış, bioflokun destekleyici bir yem katkısı olarak potansiyel taşıdığını ortaya koymuştur. Su kalite parametreleri, bioflok tanklarında azot bileşiklerinin daha yüksek olduğunu, ancak pH, çözünmüş oksijen ve sıcaklığın kontrollü aralıkta kaldığını göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, bioflok biyokütlesi kabuklu larvalar için tek başına yeterli olmasa da ticari yemle birlikte kullanımı biyolojik ve ekonomik açıdan destekleyici bir yöntem olarak değerlendirilebilir.

Keywords

• Biyoflok teknolojisi
• tatlı su kereviti
• Pontastacus leptodactylus
• Carassius auratus
• büyüme performansı

References

1. Ahmed Alkhamis, Y., Sultana, A., Tareq Arafat, S., Abdur Rouf, M., Mustafizur Rahman, S., Thomas Mathew, R., ... & Moshiur Rahman, M. (2023). The Impact of bioflok technology on water quality in aquaculture: a systematic meta‐analysis. Aquaculture Nutrition, 2023(1): 9915874. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9915874
2. Alvanou, M. V., Papadopoulos, D. K., Lattos, A., Georgoulis, I., Feidantsis, K., Apostolidis, Α. P., ... & Giantsis, I. A. (2022). Biology, distribution, conservation status and stocking perspective of freshwater crayfish in Greece: An updated review. Aquaculture Research, 53(15): 5115-5128. 10.1111/are.16009
3. Arshad, S., Arshad, S., Afzal, S., & Tasleem, F. (2024). Environmental impact and sustainable practices in aquaculture: A comprehensive review. Haya Saudi Journal Life Sciences, 9(11): 447-454. https://doi.org/10.36348/sjls.2024.v09i11.005 Bahadır Koca, S., Koca, H. U., Özdoğan, H. B. E. & Yigit, N. Ö. (2024). Growth performance and survival rate of Pontastacus leptodactylus juveniles fed with Fresh black soldier fly Hermetia illucens and mealworm Tenebrio molitor larvae. Acta Aquatica Turcica, 20(4): 343-350. https://doi.org/10.22392/actaquatr.1452851
4. Boyd, C. E., & McNevin, A. A. (2024). Resource use and pollution potential in feed-based aquaculture. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 32(2): 306-333.https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2023.2258226
5. Cilbiz, M., Aydın, C. & Uzunmehmetoğlu, O. Y. (2020). Türkiye’nin kerevit Pontastacus leptodactylus (Eschscholtz, 1823) üretiminin ulusal ve küresel ölçekte değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Limnology and Freshwater Fisheries Research, 6(1): 59-74.https://doi.org/10.17216/limnofish.561180 Crab, R., Defoirdt, T., Bossier, P., & Verstraete, W. (2012). Biofloc technology in aquaculture: beneficial effects and future challenges. Aquaculture, 356: 351-356.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.04.046
6. Dvoretsky, A. G. & Dvoretsky, V. G. (2025). Farming of indigenous crayfish in Russia: A mini-review of recent studies. Animals, 15(2): 223.https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15020223
7. Ferrando-Juan, S., Gómez-Aguilera, J., Martínez-Llorens, S., Tomás-Vidal, A., Rodilla, M., Jover-Cerdá, M., ... & Peñaranda, D. S. (2026). Optimization of protein requirements and feed restriction in Penaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) biofloc culture. Aquaculture International, 34(2): 65.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-025-02414-w
8. Gören, G. U. (2024). Effects on growth of juvenile crayfish (Astacus leptodactylus Eschscholtz, 1823) feeding different protein levels. Menba Kastamonu Üniversitesi Su Ürünleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3): 58-64. https://doi.org/10.58626/menba.1525392

9. Helal, A. M., Zaher, M. M., Meshhal, D. T., Ashour, M., Younis, E. M., Abdelwarith, A. A., ... & Nassif, M. G. (2024). Bioflok supplementation improves growth performances, nutrient utilization, and histological status of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) while enhancing zooplankton diversity, community, and abundance. Aquaculture, 585: 740711.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.740711
10. Iber, B. T., Ikyo, B. C., Nor, M. N. M., Abdullah, S. R. S., Shafie, M. S. B., Manan, H., ... & Kasan, N. A. (2025). Application of Biofloc technology in shrimp aquaculture: A review on current practices, challenges, and future perspectives. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 19: 101675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2025.101675
11. Jiang, Q., Bhattarai, N., Pahlow, M. & Xu, Z. (2022). Environmental sustainability and footprints of global aquaculture. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 180: 106183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106183
12. Khatoon, H., Banerjee, S., Yuan, G. T. G., Haris, N., Ikhwanuddin, M., Ambak, M. A. & Endut, A. (2016). Bioflok as a potential natural feed for shrimp postlarvae. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 113: 304-309.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2016.04.006
13. Khanjani, M. H., Eslami, J., Ghaedi, G. & Sourinejad, I. (2022). The effects of different stocking densities on nursery performance of banana shrimp (Fenneropenaeus merguiensis) reared under biofloc condition. Annals of Animal Science, 22(4): 1291-1299.https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2022-0027
14. Khanjani, M. H., Mohammadi, A. & Emerenciano, M. G. C. (2024). Water quality in bioflok technology (BFT): an applied review for an evolving aquaculture. Aquaculture International, 32(7): 9321-9374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-024-01618-w
15. Khanjani, M. H., Sharifinia, M., & Emerenciano, M. G. C. (2024). Biofloc technology (BFT) in aquaculture: What goes right, what goes wrong? A scientific‐based snapshot. Aquaculture Nutrition, 2024(1): 7496572. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/7496572
16. Kropielnicka-Kruk, K., Ulikowski, D. & Wasilewska, A. (2024). Effect of feed and holding conditions on survival and growth of juvenile crayfish Pontastacus leptodactylus and Faxonius limosus. Fisheries & Aquatic Life, 32(2): 80-88.https://doi.org/10.2478/aopf-2024-0007
17. Korbee, N., Bautista, B., García-Sánchez, M., Cobos, P., Ferres-García, J. L., Figueroa, F. L. & Medrano, E. (2025). Evaluating hydroponics and aquaponics: Comparative insights into sustainability and strawberry quality. Agricultural Water Management, 312: 109412.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2025.109412
18. Li, C., Ge, Z., Dai, L. & Chen, Y. (2025). Integrated application of bioflok technology in aquaculture: a review. Water, 17(14): 2107.https://doi.org/10.3390/w17142107
19. Matishov, G., Meskhi, B., Rudoy, D., Olshevskaya, A., Shevchenko, V., Golovko, L., ... & Teplyakova, S. (2025). Using Bioflok Technology to Improve Aquaculture Efficiency. Fishes, 10(4): 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10040144
20. Nisar, U., Peng, D., Mu, Y. & Sun, Y. (2022). A Solution for sustainable utilization of aquaculture waste: a comprehensive review of bioflok technology and aquamimicry. Front. Nutr. 8: 791738. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.791738
21. Özdoğan, H. B. & Koca, H. U. (2023). Effects of different diets on growth and survival of first feeding second-stage juvenile Pontastacus leptodactylus (Eschscholtz, 1823)(Decapoda, Astacidea). Crustaceana, 96(7): 673-682.https://doi.org/10.1163/15685403-bja10306
22. Raza, B., Zheng, Z. & Yang, W. (2024). A review on bioflok system technology, history, types, and future economical perceptions in aquaculture. Animals, 14(10): 1489.https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14101489
23. Roy, S. M., Choi, H. & Kim, T. (2025). Review of state-of-the-art improvements in recirculating aquaculture systems: Insights into design, operation, and statistical modeling approaches. Aquaculture, 605: 742545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2025.742545
24. Sallam, G. R., Shehata, A. I., Basuini, M. F. E., Habib, Y. J., Henish, S., Rahman, A. N. A., ... & Aly, H. A. (2024). Integrated bioflok technology in red tilapia aquaculture: Salinity-dependent effects on water quality, parental stock physiology, reproduction, and immune responses. Aquaculture International, 32(7): 8731-8761.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-024-01588-z
25. Tang, Y., Ju, C., Mei, R., Zhao, L., Liu, J., Yang, Y., ... & Liu, Q. (2024). Exploring the optimal integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) patterns benefiting culture animals and natural water environment. Aquaculture, 589: 741011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.741011
26. Tiwari, H. & Pophali, G. R. (2025). Review of improved hydrodynamics in moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBRs) for wastewater treatment: A way forward. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 13(3): 116751.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2025.116751
27. Yadav, N. K., Paul, S., Patel, A. B., Mahanand, S. S., Biswas, P., Choudhury, T. G., ... & Meena, D. K. (2025). The role of bioflok technology in sustainable aquaculture: nutritional insights and system efficiency. Blue Biotechnology, 2(1): 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44315-025-00025-x
28. Yildiz, H. Y., Köksal, G. & Benli, A. C. K. (2004). Physiological response of the crayfish, Astacus leptodactylus to saline water. Crustaceana, 77(10): 1271-1276.