Effect of dietary supplementation with Bacillus subtilis on the growth, performance, immune response and antioxidant activities of the shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of dietary supplementation of a probiotic bacterium, Bacillus subtilis, on the growth, immune response and antioxidant activities of shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). Shrimps with an average initial weight of 2.11±0.17 g were randomly assigned to four groups with three replicates. The control group was fed a basal diet, and three treated groups were fed diets supplemented with B. subtilis at doses of 1 × 104, 5 × 104 and 10 × 104 colony‐forming unit (CFU) g−1 feed respectively. After 40 days of culture, 10 shrimps from each replicate were taken randomly for the determination of immune response and oxidization resistance indices. The results showed that the shrimps fed with B. subtilis at a dose of 1 × 104, 5 × 104 CFU g−1 feed showed significantly better growth than that of the control diet. The phenoloxidase activities showed a tendency to increase with an increased dose of B. subtilis in diets but there was no significant difference among the three treated groups. In addition, phenoloxidase activities were found to be significantly higher (P<0.05) in the groups treated with B. subtilis than that of the control group. Shrimps treated with 5 × 104 CFU g−1 feed probiotic bacterium showed the highest lysozyme activity and it was significantly higher (P<0.05) than the other groups. However, there was no significant difference in acid phosphatase and alkaline phosphatase activity across all the groups. The total antioxidant capacity, superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase activities in the probiotic‐treated groups were significantly increased (P<0.05) as compared with the control groups. Both maleic dialdehyde concentration and superoxide anion activities in the probiotic‐treated groups were significantly lower (P<0.05) than those of the control. The probiotic did not affect the nitric oxide synthase and the catalase activity in any of the control and treated groups. These results indicated that the probiotic B. subtilis could significantly promote the growth rate of shrimp by increasing the immune function and antioxidant capacity. The most effective dose of B. subtilis in the diet was 5 × 104 CFU g−1 feed.

Efficacy of Probiotics on Survival, Growth, Biochemical Changes and Energy Utilization Performance of <i>Macrobrachium rosenbergii</i> (De Man 1879) Post-larvae

“…These differences were found to be statistically significant (P<0.05). Similar improved survival has been reported in M. rosenbergii PL fed with L. sporogenes bioencapsulated diets [5], Binifit TM supplemented diets [6], Biogen® supplemented diets [8] and different probiotics supplemented diets [9], and in shrimps, fed with L. acidophilus, S. cremoris, L. bulgaricus-56 and L. bulgaricus-57 incorporated diets [21], B. subtilis incorporated diets [25] and Bacillus sp incorporated diets [26].…”

Evaluation of different probiotic strains for growth performance and immunomodulation in Pacific white shrimp Penaeus vannamei Boone, 1931

“…Average daily growth (ADG) was high in S. cerevisiae (0.106±0.002 g) and B. subtilis (0.104 ± 0.002 g) followed by other strains such as Sb (0.092 ± 0.002 g), Lc (0.083 ± 0.001 g), Lr (0.082 ± 0.001 g), Ent (0.065 ± 0.004) and Cp (0.064 ± 0.002 g) whereas in control it was observed to be the lowest (0.062 ± 0.004 g). Similar to our findings, several studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of probiotics on the growth performance in shrimp (Wang et al, 2007;Shen et al, 2010;Liu et al, 2009). …”

Effect of a commercial probiotic on bacterial and phytoplankton concentration in intensive shrimp farming (Litopenaeus vannamei) recirculation systems

“…However, other organisms, such as fungi and yeasts, have also been used for probiotic purposes (Devajara et al, 2002;Ribeiro et al, 2008). Research on probiotics for aquatic animals is increasing with the demand for sustainable, environmentally friendly aquaculture (Wang et al, 2005;Farzanfar, 2006;Ravi et al, 2007;Decamp et al, 2008;Li et al, 2008;Gomez et al, 2009;Guo et al, 2009;Liu et al, 2009;Ninawe & Selvin, 2009;Peraza-Gómes et al, 2009;Pai et al, 2010;Shen et al, 2010;Silva et al, 2011Silva et al, , 2012Souza et al, 2011;Zhang et al, 2011).…”