4.5 Article

Effect of feeding Lactobacillus-based probiotics on the gut microflora, growth and survival of postlarvae of Macrobrachium rosenbergii (de Man)

Journal

AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages 501-507

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2004.01045.x

Keywords

Macrobrachium rosenbergii; probiotics; L. acidophillus; L. sporogenes; artemia; growth; SGR; survival

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study was conducted to study probiotics treatment in the post-larval diet of Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Three hundred postlarvae (average weight, 114-118 mg+/-0.11) were divided in five experimental groups each with four replicates. The experiment was conducted for 60 days. Experimental diets were identical in all the aspects except for variation in the probiotics strain. T1 and T2 groups were fed Lactobacillus acidophilus (140x10(11) CFU 100 g(-1)) and L. sporogenes (24x10(7) CFU 100 g(-1)) respectively. The T3 group was fed L. sporogenes bioencapsulated in Artemia nauplii. T4 was the control group (without probiotic) whereas T5 was fed Artemia along with control diet. The bacteriological study indicated that the gut microflora of postlarvae are devoid of lactic acid bacteria. The probiotic strains were found to have inhibitory effects against the gram-negative bacterial flora present in the gut. Growth of the probiotic fed groups was significantly higher (P<0.05) than the control group. Significantly higher growth (P<0.05), per cent weight gain (132.5%), specific growth rate (1.41%), feed efficiency ratio (FER) (0.45), protein efficiency ratio (1.29) and protein gain (161.6%) were recorded in T3 group fed Artemia bioencapsulated L. sporogenes over the control group (P<0.05). Although insignificant (P>0.05), growth-promoting effects of L. sporogenes were found to be higher than L. acidophillus. Survival of the postlarvae was not affected by probiotics in the diet.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available