Research on the Application of Chicken Meal in Aquaculture Feed: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

The escalating demand for sustainable protein sources in aquaculture has prompted researchers to explore alternatives to traditional fishmeal (FM), which faces challenges of limited supply, high cost, and ecological concerns. Chicken meal (CM), a byproduct of poultry processing, has emerged as a promising substitute due to its high protein content, favorable amino acid profile, and cost-effectiveness. This article reviews recent studies on the application of CM in aquaculture feed, focusing on its effects on growth performance, feed efficiency, health parameters, and fillet quality across various aquatic species. Comparative tables highlight key parameters, contrasting CM with FM and other protein sources. The analysis underscores CM’s potential as a viable alternative while identifying areas requiring further investigation to optimize its use in aquafeeds.

1. Introduction

Aquaculture has become a cornerstone of global food security, contributing over 50% of fish for human consumption as of 2025. However, the industry’s reliance on FM, derived from wild-caught fish, poses sustainability challenges due to overfishing, price volatility, and environmental impacts. With FM prices fluctuating between $1800 and $2200 per ton in recent years, compared to CM at approximately $1100–$1300 per ton, the economic incentive to find alternatives is clear. Chicken meal, produced from poultry byproducts such as feathers, bones, and offal, offers a high-protein (60–70% crude protein) and lipid-rich (10–15%) option that aligns with circular economy principles by repurposing waste.

This article synthesizes recent research on CM in aquaculture feed, comparing its performance against FM and other alternatives like soybean meal (SBM) and insect meal (IM). Parameters such as growth rate, feed conversion ratio (FCR), survival rate, and muscle quality are evaluated across species including Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and common carp (Cyprinus carpio). The discussion includes practical implications, limitations, and future research directions.

2. Nutritional Profile of Chicken Meal

Chicken meal is produced by rendering poultry byproducts, resulting in a dry, ground product with a nutrient composition that varies based on raw material and processing methods. Table 1 provides a comparative nutritional profile of CM, FM, SBM, and IM.

Table 1: Nutritional Composition of Protein Sources (% Dry Matter)

Parameter	Chicken Meal (CM)	Fishmeal (FM)	Soybean Meal (SBM)	Insect Meal (IM)
Crude Protein (%)	65–70	65–72	44–48	50–60
Crude Lipid (%)	10–15	8–12	1–2	15–25
Ash (%)	12–18	15–20	6–7	5–10
Lysine (%)	3.5–4.0	4.5–5.0	2.8–3.2	3.0–3.5
Methionine (%)	1.5–2.0	2.0–2.5	0.6–0.7	1.0–1.5
Digestibility (%)	85–90	90–95	80–85	80–88

CM’s protein content rivals FM, though it has slightly lower levels of essential amino acids (EAAs) like lysine and methionine. Its higher lipid content compared to SBM enhances energy availability, while its digestibility (85–90%) is competitive, though marginally lower than FM. These attributes make CM a strong candidate for partial or full FM replacement, depending on species-specific nutritional requirements.

3. Application Studies and Comparative Analysis

3.1 Asian Seabass (Lates calcarifer)

A 2024 study investigated the replacement of FM with CM in Asian seabass diets over eight weeks. Diets were formulated to be isonitrogenous (40% protein) and isolipidic (10% lipid), with CM inclusion levels of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%. Results showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) in final body weight (FBW), weight gain percentage (WG%), FCR, or survival rate up to 10% inclusion, suggesting CM as a viable substitute at moderate levels.

Table 2: Performance Parameters in Asian Seabass Fed CM Diets

Inclusion Level (%)	FBW (g)	WG%	FCR	Survival Rate (%)
0 (Control, FM)	45.2	1360	1.45	95
5	44.8	1345	1.47	94
10	44.5	1330	1.50	93
15	42.1	1265	1.58	91
20	40.3	1200	1.65	90

At 15% and 20% inclusion, growth parameters declined slightly, possibly due to reduced palatability or imbalances in EAAs, highlighting a threshold for effective CM use in this species.

3.2 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides)

A 2023 study tested a terrestrial compound protein (Cpro) including CM, bone meal, and black soldier fly protein to replace FM in largemouth bass diets. Four diets (T1: 36% FM; T2: 30% FM; T3: 24% FM; T4: 18% FM) were fed for 81 days. Growth performance and feed efficiency remained stable across groups, with T4 (18% FM + Cpro) showing increased muscle protein content.

Table 3: Growth and Muscle Quality in Largemouth Bass

Diet	FBW (g)	SGR (%/day)	FCR	Muscle Protein (%)
T1 (36%)	150.5	2.15	1.20	19.5
T2 (30%)	149.8	2.14	1.22	19.7
T3 (24%)	148.9	2.12	1.23	20.0
T4 (18%)	149.2	2.13	1.21	21.2

The stability in specific growth rate (SGR) and FCR, coupled with enhanced muscle protein in T4, suggests CM-based Cpro can reduce FM dependency without compromising performance, offering a cost-effective solution for carnivorous species.

3.3 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio)

An eight-week trial in 2023 evaluated CM at 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 100% replacement levels in carp diets. Growth parameters improved significantly (p < 0.05) up to 15% inclusion, with fillet texture (hardness, chewiness) also enhanced.

Table 4: Growth and Fillet Quality in Common Carp

CM Level (%)	FBW (g)	WGR (%)	FCR	Hardness (N)
0 (FM)	85.3	48.7	1.60	12.5
5	88.1	53.2	1.55	13.0
10	90.4	57.8	1.50	13.8
15	92.6	61.5	1.45	14.5
100	80.2	40.1	1.75	11.8

Full replacement (100%) led to reduced growth and fillet quality, indicating that complete FM substitution exceeds carp’s nutritional tolerance, likely due to EAA deficiencies or anti-nutritional factors in CM.

4. Comparative Discussion

4.1 Growth Performance

Across species, CM supports growth comparable to FM at partial replacement levels (5–15%). Asian seabass and largemouth bass maintain performance up to 10% and 18% FM replacement, respectively, while carp show optimal growth at 15%. Full replacement often results in diminished performance, as seen in carp and seabass, suggesting CM’s limitations in fully meeting EAA requirements for carnivorous and omnivorous species.

4.2 Feed Efficiency

FCR remains competitive with CM inclusion up to moderate levels (1.45–1.55), closely mirroring FM-based diets (1.20–1.60). Higher CM levels increase FCR (e.g., 1.65–1.75), reflecting reduced digestibility or palatability, a contrast to SBM, which often raises FCR due to lower protein quality.

4.3 Health and Muscle Quality

CM enhances muscle protein in largemouth bass and fillet texture in carp, advantages not consistently observed with SBM or IM. However, antioxidant capacity and digestive enzyme activity may vary, with some studies noting improvements at 50% replacement in bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), but not at 100%.

4.4 Cost and Sustainability

CM’s lower cost ($1100–$1300/ton vs. $1800–$2200/ton for FM) and use of poultry byproducts align with sustainability goals. Unlike IM, which requires scaling production, CM leverages existing poultry industry infrastructure, offering immediate scalability.

5. Limitations and Challenges

• • Amino Acid Balance: CM’s lower lysine and methionine levels compared to FM necessitate supplementation or blending with other proteins (e.g., SBM or IM) to meet species-specific needs.
  • Palatability: High CM inclusion (e.g., 20% in seabass) reduces feed intake, possibly due to off-flavors from lipid oxidation during rendering.
  • Anti-Nutritional Factors: Residual compounds in CM, such as biogenic amines, may affect health at high levels, requiring quality control in production.
  • Species Variability: Carnivorous species (e.g., seabass) show stricter limits on CM inclusion than omnivores (e.g., carp), reflecting dietary preferences.

6. Future Research Directions

• Optimization of Inclusion Levels: Species-specific trials to determine maximum CM thresholds without compromising growth or health.
• Nutrient Enhancement: Fortifying CM with synthetic EAAs or blending with plant/insect proteins to improve nutritional profiles.
• Processing Improvements: Advanced rendering techniques to enhance digestibility and reduce anti-nutritional factors.
• Long-Term Studies: Assessing CM’s impact on reproduction, immunity, and fillet quality over extended periods.

Chicken meal presents a compelling alternative to fishmeal in aquaculture feed, offering comparable growth, feed efficiency, and muscle quality at partial replacement levels (5–18%). Its economic and environmental benefits position it as a sustainable option, particularly for species like largemouth bass and carp. However, full replacement remains impractical due to nutritional gaps and palatability issues. By addressing these challenges through targeted research and formulation strategies, CM can significantly reduce aquaculture’s reliance on FM, supporting a more resilient and eco-friendly industry.