3.9 Article

BACILLUS IN DIETS FOR FINGERLINGS OF NILE TILAPIA, GIFT VARIETY

Journal

BIOSCIENCE JOURNAL
Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 532-540

Publisher

UNIV FEDERAL UBERLANDIA
DOI: 10.14393/BJ-v31n2a2015-22506

Keywords

Corporal Indexes; Fingerlings; Performance Produtive; Probiotics; Tilapia Culture

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Probiotics have gained prominence in aquaculture production as growth promoters, especially in tilapia culture, by being able to survive the gastrointestinal tract, adhere intestinal wall cells, reduce or prevent pathogens not be pathogenic to the host. The objective was to evaluate the performance, body indexes and macro and micronutrient composition of the carcass of the Nile tilapia, GIFT variety, fed with diets formulated with probiotic Bacillus cereus var. Toyoi and Bacillus subtilis C-3102, during nursery. There were used 720 post-larvae with initial average weight of 26.6 +/- 3.4 mg. Fish were randomly distributed in a system of 24 aquaria of 0.03 m(3) a completely randomized design consisting of three treatments and eight replications, consisting of two probiotics, and probiotic treatment absent. The data parameters were analyzed by ANOVA at 5%. There were no significant differences (p>0.05) in fish from all treatments for the final weight, weight gain, specific growth rate and feed intake. The final biomass, gain and survival of fish biomass was affected significantly (p<0.05) by addition of any one of the probiotics in relation to the absent. There were no differences (p>0.05) in body composition and with probiotics or absent in diets. The inclusion of any of probiotics was influenced (p<0.05) on calcium levels in the carcass of fish fingerlings in relation to the missing of probiotics. The use of B. subtilis or B. cereus improves performance and does not negatively affect the body indexes, macro and micronutrients in the carcass of Nile tilapia, GIFT variety.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available