International Journal of Aquaculture, 2016, Vol.6, No.2, 1
-
9
5
Figure 2 Mean weight, Survival percentage and Biomass of
Piaractus mesopotamicus
after bacterial treatments with LAB
suspension on day 15
Note: Vertical bars indicate Standard Error of means (SE)
Figure 3 Mean weight, Survival percentage and Biomass of
Piaractus mesopotamicus after bacterial treatments with ENT
suspension on day 15
Note: Vertical bars indicate Standard Error of means (SE)
Table 3 One way ANOVA of mean weight, survival and biomass of
P. mesopotamicus
larvae administered with ENT mixture in
different doses and stag
Variable
N
SS
df
MS
F
p-value
Mean weight (mg)
30
4.02
9
0.45
2.65
0.0332
Survival (%)
30
2278.53
9
253.17
1.01
0.4667
Biomass (mg)
30
26648.93
9
2960.99
5.01
0.0013
Table 4 Polynomial function coefficients for the mean weight and biomass of
Piaractus mesopotamicus
versus dose of
microorganisms
Mean Wight
Biomass
Polynomial function
﹣
0.7772 + 0.8216*dose
﹣
0.0095*dose
2
﹣
111.8 +64.369*dose
﹣
4.5525*dose
2
R
2
51.47%
68.25%
Figure 4 Two-ways assay results showing the stage-dose interaction on survival (a), mean weight (b) and biomass (c) of ENT
suspension on Piaractus mesopotamicus parameters. Vertical bars indicate SE
Note: (a), mean weight (b) and biomass (c) of ENT suspension on Piaractus mesopotamicus parameters. Vertical bars indicate SE
The macroscopic evaluation of the animals showed no visible alterations of the normal development and/or
behavior of the fishes in any of the doses of bacterial administered. The histological evaluation indicated no
modifications of the normal structure of major organs, aggrupation of microorganisms or translocation to any of
the organs under evaluation when comparing each treatment with control. Histology of stomach, liver and
intestine showed no significant differences between control animals and those treated with the dose 4 of LAB and
dose 7 of ENT during the three different stages assayed. They are resumed in Figure 5.
