Effect of different growth promoters on growth performance, feed utilization and body composition of common carp (Cyprinus carpio)

3Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: This study was carried out to compare the effect of some commercial growth promoters (Probiotic, prebiotic and acidifier) on growth performance, feed utilization, body composition and blood pictures of juveniles common carp (Cyprinus carpio) reared in earthen ponds. Methodology: A total number of (3600) apparently healthy juveniles common carp (20 g) reared in 12 earthen ponds (100 m3 each) to assign four treatments (Control, probiotic (Biogen®), prebiotic (Garlin Extra4®) and acidifier (Galliacid®)) in triplicate for each treatment. The fish fed 3% of their body weight twice a day for 183 days. Results: The results indicated that fish performance parameters were superior significantly (p>0.05) in probiotic treatment followed by prebiotic then acidifier finally control group. The same trend was observed in feed utilization parameters. In body composition analysis the best protein content was observed in probiotic treatment but the highest fat content was in acidifier and there were significant differences in ash content. There were significant differences in total white blood cells count as indicator for immune response. Conclusion: These results suggested that supplementing diets with commercial feed additives promotes growth performance, feed utilization and net financial return comparing with the control, but the comparison between them showed that probiotics was more superior followed by prebiotics then acidifier in juveniles common carp diets at practical applied field.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hussein, M. S., Zaghlol, A., Abd El Hakim, N. F., El Nawsany, M., & Abo-State, H. A. (2016). Effect of different growth promoters on growth performance, feed utilization and body composition of common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 11(5), 370–377. https://doi.org/10.3923/jfas.2016.370.377

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free