4.5 Article

Evaluation of Bacillus subtilis as a probiotic to Indian major carp Labeo rohita (Ham.)

期刊

AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
卷 37, 期 12, 页码 1215-1221

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2006.01551.x

关键词

Bacillus subtilis; probiotic; Labeo rohita; haematological parameters; serum parameters; Aeromonas hydrophila

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacillus subtilis, a Gram-positive, aerobic, endospore-forming bacterium, was evaluated for its probiotic potential in Indian major carp, Labeo rohita. Labeo rohita (15 +/- 2 g) were fed a feed containing B. subtilis in three concentrations for 2 weeks, e.g., 0.5 (T-2), 1.0 (T-3) and 1.5 (T-4) x 10(7) CFU g(-1) feed. The control group (T-1) was fed feed without B. subtilis for the same period. Haematological and serum parameters were monitored at weekly intervals. The response variables were total erythrocyte count, total leucocyte count (TLC), haemoglobin, total protein, albumin, globulin, albumin-globulin ratio, alkaline phosphatase activity, alanine aminotransferase activity and aspartate aminotransferase activity. Fish were challenged intraperitoneally with a virulent strain of Aeromonas hydrophila after 2 weeks of feeding to the treatment groups and positive control group, while the negative control group was challenged with phosphate-buffered saline only. Clinical signs and symptoms, and mortality/survival percentage were noted in each group. The haematological and serum parameters were monitored each week and during post challenge on the third and tenth day. The B. subtilis-treated fish (T-4, 1.5 x 10(7) CFU g(-1) feed) showed maximum per cent survival (87.50%), weight gain (35.5%), TLCs (3.23 x 10(4) cells mm(-3)), haemoglobin content (7.4 g%), total protein (2.37 gdL(-1)) and globulin content (1.28 g dL(-1)) during the pre-challenge. Enzymes showed higher activities during post challenge (P < 0.05). The result suggests that B. subtilis can be used effectively as a commercial product for use in aquaculture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据