选用豆粕、鱼粉、植物油、淀粉等原料配制基础料为对照组,在基础饲料中分别添加0.5%、1.0%、3.0%、5.0%芽孢杆菌(Bacillus subtilis)制剂为实验组.实验结果显示,凡纳对虾(Pennaus vannamei)生长的2个阶段,实验组γSGR均大于对照组;生长第1阶段,组1与组2差异显著(P<0.05),与其余3组差异不显著(P>0.05),但各实验组之间差异均不明显(P>0.05);生长第2阶段,组1与组2之间γSGR差异极显著(P<0.01),与其余3组差异不明显(P>0.05),但各实验组间:组2与组4 γSGR差异显著(P<0.05),而与组5 γSGR差异极显著(P<0.01);对虾生长2个阶段的成活率实验组均略高于对照组,第1阶段的成活率明显高于第2阶段;芽孢杆菌对凡纳对虾2个生长阶段消化酶活性的影响表现出一定的相似性:实验组蛋白酶活性较淀粉酶、脂肪酶和纤维素酶高,且明显高于对照组,但各实验组间变化不明显.表明芽孢杆菌可以提高凡纳对虾消化酶活性和成活率,利于养分的消化吸收,促进生长.
The basal diet that was made of fish meal,soybean meal-solvent,plant-oil and starch,et al. was regarded as control group without probiotics added in. The trial groups were designed with 4 added levels of probiotics which were maxed with the basai diet. The added levels of probiotics were 0.5%,1.0%,3.0% and 5.0%. The whole ex-periment period was 58 d, and the first 29 d was the first stage,and the latter 29 d was the second stage. γSGR and ac-tivity of digestive enzy mes were examed at both stages by sampling at the end of each stage. The experimental results indicated that all the γSGR of trial groups were higher than that of control group in the first and second stage for Penaeus vannamei. In the first stage, the γSGR in the group of probiotics added level at 0.5% was higher than that in control group ( P < 0.05) , but there was no significant differences in γSGR between control group and the other 3 trial groups with added level of probiotics at 1.0% ,3.0% and 5.0% (P > 0.05 ) , and among all the trial groups either ( P > 0.05); in the second stage, the γSGR in the group with added level of probiotics at 0.5 % was different from that in the group with added level of probiotics at 3.0% ( P < 0.05 ) , and significant different from the control and the with group added level of probiotics at 5.0%(P<0.01); but no significant difference bet ween the control group and the trial groups except the group with added level of probiotics at 0.5% ( P > 0.05 ); survival rates of the trial groups were higher than those in control in both stages. The survival rates were higher in the first stage than in the second stage; the effects of probiotics on aetivities of digestive enzymes beheaved similar trend in both stages:com-pared with the control group, the aetivities of digestive enzymes affected by probiotics changed clearly in protease, didn' t change clearly in amylase,cellulase and lipase. The aetivities of several digestive enzymes didn' t show any difference in all trial groups. All these results demonstrated that th
Journal of Fishery Sciences of China