Table 1. Comparison of micro diet types for delivery of nutrients to fish larvae

Micro diet type Advantage Disadvantage
MBD • Inexpensive• Easy to produce• Binders can be nutritionally inert • Poor retention of LMWS nutrients and possibly water-soluble proteins
Cross-linked protein walled capsules • Possible to modify capsule wall properties• Digestible for some species of fish larvae • Expensive• Use of organic solvents• Poor retention of LMWS nutrients
Lipid – walled capsules and lipid spray beads • Inexpensive• Easy to produce• Better retention of LMWS nutrients compared with micro-bound particles and cross-linked protein-walled capsules • Hard-lipid particles are not digestible by most species of fish larvae and depend on mechanical breakdown• Possible oxidation of unsaturated lipids during preparation and storage
Liposomes • Better retention of LMWS nutrients compared with micro-bound particles and cross-linked protein-walled capsules• Digestible• Phospholipid wall material may contribute to larval nutrition • Expensive• Use of organic solvents• Preparation involves several steps• Possible oxidation of unsaturated lipids during preparation and storage
MCD • Digestible• Lower nutrient leaching • Expensive
MEM • Produce larger particle size (100–500 µm) • Double step• Expensive
PARA • Single step• Can produce smaller particles (50–500 µm) • Expensive
MED • The capsule wall helps maintain the integrity of the food particle until it is consumed• Lower leaching and degredation of nutrients in the water • Restrict leaching of water-soluble dietary components and therefore reduce the larvae’s attraction to the food particles• The capsule wall impairs digestion• Expensive
MBD, micro-bound diets; LMWS, low molecular water soluble nutrients; MCD, micro coated diets; MEM, micro-extrusion marumerization diets; PARA, particle-assisted rotational agglomeration; MED, micro encapsulated diets.