4.5 Article

Effects of dietary medicinal herbs and Bacillus on survival, growth, body composition, and digestive enzyme activity of the white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei

期刊

AQUACULTURE INTERNATIONAL
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 377-384

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10499-008-9209-3

关键词

Bacillus; Body composition; Digestive enzyme activity; Growth; Litopenaeus vannamei; Medicinal herbs

资金

  1. National Key Technologies RD Programme [2004BA526B0202, 2006BAK02A22]
  2. Fishery prosper Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province of China [B200201A01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The basal diet (C), with 0.20% medicinal herbs (M) and 0.30% Bacillus (BM1), with 0.10% medicinal herbs and 0.15% Bacillus (BM2), and with 0.30% Bacillus (B), was used to feed white shrimps (Litopenaeus vannamei) (1.91 +/- A 0.03 g) in order to assess survival, growth, body composition, and digestive enzyme activity. At the end of the feeding trial, survival ranged from 95.83 to 98.33% with no significant difference (P > 0.05) among all groups. Growth measured as weight gain was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in shrimp fed with BM2, BM1, and M compared to that of C. However, no significant differences were found among B, BM1, and M. In the case of specific growth rate, the shrimp fed with BM1 and BM2 exhibited significantly (P < 0.05) higher values than that of C. The contents of body moisture, crude protein, and ash seemed to be unaffected by the feed supplements, though lipid content was found to be significantly (P < 0.05) different among the treatments. The shrimp fed with BM1 and BM2 had the lowest and highest lipid contents, respectively. The digestive enzyme activity assessed using shrimp hepatopancreas revealed that the activities of amylase and protease in shrimp fed with BM2 were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than those of C at the end of the 2nd and 6th weeks. However, better performance of the specific amylase activity was shown by the shrimp fed with B at the end of the 8th week.

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