Krummenauer Poersch Romano Lara Hostins Wasielesky
FURG THE USE OF BFT SYSTEM WITH PROBIOTIC TO LIMIT SHRIMP VIBRIOSIS
Dariano Krummenauer*, Luis Poersch, Luiz A. Romano, Gabriele R. Lara, Bárbara Hostins & Wilson Wasielesky Jr
Rio Grande, Brazil
Southern Brazil Rio Grande do Sul State (32oS)
MARINE STATION AQUACULTURE Since 1985
Courtesy:Paulo Iribarrem
Secondary
Vibrio sp
Vibrio Infections
Stress
Systemic
Vibrio affects growth or cause high
mortalities culture.
during
penaeid
shrimp
On the other hand, probiotics may change microbial communities in aquatic culture environments
OBJECTIVE Analyze
the
effect
of
a
probiotic
in
Litopenaeus vannamei cultured in a biofloc technology system contaminated with Vibrio
parahaemolyticus.
Raceway infected with Vibrio (1500 shrimps /m2)
Necrosis was observed on the muscular fiber. These are colonies of V. parahaemolyticus
The experiment compared two treatments (three replicates) CONTROL
COMMERCIAL PROBIOTIC
(Biofloc without probiotic)
Multi-strain probiotic Added to the feed -
Bacillus
sp.,
Enterococcus
Lactobacillus sp
In the water - Bacillus sp., Enterococcus sp.,
Thiobacillus sp and Paracoccus sp.
sp.
and
Treatments were randomly assigned Greenhouse;
Six tanks of 35 ton L lined raceways;
300 shrimps/m2 Each
tank
was
stocked
with Vibrio parahaemolyticus infected juveniles
Bioflocs Imhoff
Secchi turbidity TSS Carbon source: molasses
Water quality DO pH Alkalinity Nitrogen compounds
Growth Weight gain FCR Survival Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Differences between means analyzed by Student’s test (α = 0.05). The experiment lasted for 70 days
Temperature
34
No significant differences
31 28
(ºC)
25 22
19 16 13 10 probiotic
control
Nitrite
Nitrogen compounds
60
no significant differences
Probiotic Control
50
40
]2mg/l [N-NO
Ammonia
30
20
10
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Time (days)
1,8 1,6
Nitrate
Probiotic Control
1,4
50
1,2
Probiotic Control
40
1,0
30
]3mg/l [N-NO
]4mg/l [N-NH
0,8 0,6 0,4
20
10
0,2 0,0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
0 0
Time (days)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time (days)
40
45
50
55
60
Bioflocs Analysis
1000
TSS
900
There were differences
no
significant
Probiotic Control
800 700 600 500
SST (mg/l)
300 200
Imhoff
60
400
100 -10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (days)
Probiotic Control
50
400
Turbidity
350
40
Probiotic Control
300 250
30
200
Turbidity (NTU)
Imhoff (cm)
150
20
10
0
100 50 0 -50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time (days)
40
45
50
55
60
-10
0
10
20
30
Time (days)
40
50
60
Final weight
12.6
9.05
Final weight (g)
10.1
8.42
7.6
5.1
2.6
0.1 Probiotic
no significant differences
Control
Survival 100
83%a
90
52%b
survival (%)
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
probiotic
control
Survival was significantly higher in the probiotic treatment (P
Dariano Krummenauer*, Luis Poersch, Luiz A. Romano, Gabriele R. Lara, Bárbara Hostins & Wilson Wasielesky Jr
Rio Grande, Brazil
Southern Brazil Rio Grande do Sul State (32oS)
MARINE STATION AQUACULTURE Since 1985
Courtesy:Paulo Iribarrem
Secondary
Vibrio sp
Vibrio Infections
Stress
Systemic
Vibrio affects growth or cause high
mortalities culture.
during
penaeid
shrimp
On the other hand, probiotics may change microbial communities in aquatic culture environments
OBJECTIVE Analyze
the
effect
of
a
probiotic
in
Litopenaeus vannamei cultured in a biofloc technology system contaminated with Vibrio
parahaemolyticus.
Raceway infected with Vibrio (1500 shrimps /m2)
Necrosis was observed on the muscular fiber. These are colonies of V. parahaemolyticus
The experiment compared two treatments (three replicates) CONTROL
COMMERCIAL PROBIOTIC
(Biofloc without probiotic)
Multi-strain probiotic Added to the feed -
Bacillus
sp.,
Enterococcus
Lactobacillus sp
In the water - Bacillus sp., Enterococcus sp.,
Thiobacillus sp and Paracoccus sp.
sp.
and
Treatments were randomly assigned Greenhouse;
Six tanks of 35 ton L lined raceways;
300 shrimps/m2 Each
tank
was
stocked
with Vibrio parahaemolyticus infected juveniles
Bioflocs Imhoff
Secchi turbidity TSS Carbon source: molasses
Water quality DO pH Alkalinity Nitrogen compounds
Growth Weight gain FCR Survival Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Differences between means analyzed by Student’s test (α = 0.05). The experiment lasted for 70 days
Temperature
34
No significant differences
31 28
(ºC)
25 22
19 16 13 10 probiotic
control
Nitrite
Nitrogen compounds
60
no significant differences
Probiotic Control
50
40
]2mg/l [N-NO
Ammonia
30
20
10
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Time (days)
1,8 1,6
Nitrate
Probiotic Control
1,4
50
1,2
Probiotic Control
40
1,0
30
]3mg/l [N-NO
]4mg/l [N-NH
0,8 0,6 0,4
20
10
0,2 0,0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
0 0
Time (days)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time (days)
40
45
50
55
60
Bioflocs Analysis
1000
TSS
900
There were differences
no
significant
Probiotic Control
800 700 600 500
SST (mg/l)
300 200
Imhoff
60
400
100 -10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (days)
Probiotic Control
50
400
Turbidity
350
40
Probiotic Control
300 250
30
200
Turbidity (NTU)
Imhoff (cm)
150
20
10
0
100 50 0 -50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time (days)
40
45
50
55
60
-10
0
10
20
30
Time (days)
40
50
60
Final weight
12.6
9.05
Final weight (g)
10.1
8.42
7.6
5.1
2.6
0.1 Probiotic
no significant differences
Control
Survival 100
83%a
90
52%b
survival (%)
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
probiotic
control
Survival was significantly higher in the probiotic treatment (P
