Open access

Use of Probiotics in Aquaculture

Written By

Rafael Vieira de Azevedo and Luís Gustavo Tavares Braga

Submitted: April 11th, 2012 Published: October 3rd, 2012

DOI: 10.5772/50056

Chapter metrics overview

7,418 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

1. Introduction

The term probiotics was first used by Lilly & Stillwell in 1965. Probiotic was defined as the microbiological origin factor that stimulates the growth of other organisms. In 1989 Roy Fuller introduced the idea that probiotics generate a beneficial effect to the host. He defined probiotics as live microorganisms which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer benefit to the host's health, improving the balance of the microbiota in the intestine.

Probiotics are defined by Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization as “live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host” [1].

The purpose of its use is to install, improve or compensate for the functions of the indigenous microbiota that inhabit the digestive tract or the surface of the body.

The idea of using fermented foods for some health benefits is not new, being mentioned in the Persian version of the Old Testament (Genesis 18:8) that “Abraham attributed his longevity to the consumption of sour milk”. Later, in 76 BC, a Roman historian, Pline, recommended the use of fermented milk products for the treatment of gastroenteritis cases [2].

However, a scientific approach, recognizing the beneficial role of certain microorganisms was applied only in the first decades of the 20th century, with the suggestion of using Lactobacillus (in 1907 Elie Metchnikoff attributed the longevity of Bulgarian populations to yoghurt consumption); Bifidobacterium (in 1906 Henri Tissier observed a greater presence of Bifidobacteria in the feces of breastfed healthy children); and Saccharomyces boulardii (Henri Boulard emphasized the use of a tropical fruit colonized by this yeast to treat diarrhea of local populations in the East during an episode of cholera in 1920) [3].

Several clinical studies have shown the benefits of probiotics to human health. For example, diarrhea treatment [4]; lactose intolerance [5]; irritable bowel syndrome [6]; allergies [7]; cancer [8]; among others.

The use of growth promoters allows improving the zootechnical performance of animals. Initially a large variety of substances with antibiotic function was used to improve performance of poultry, pigs and cattle, especially penicillin and tetracycline.

The use of antibiotics as additives to feeds showed great benefits to animal husbandry, expressed primarily in improved weight gain and feed conversion.

Antibiotics were used for decades, but are being banished from the zootechnical activity, mainly due to the risks posed by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can result in problems for animal and human health.

Accordingly, probiotics have deserved attention from researchers seeking alternatives to the use of traditional growth promoters in the field of animal nutrition.

Probiotics have also received special attention from researchers seeking animal nutrition alternatives to the use of traditional growth promoters (antibiotics). Therefore, the use of probiotics is being increasingly seen as an alternative to the use of antibiotics in animal production.

Many scientific papers show the beneficial effects of supplementation with probiotic strains in diets for poultry, pigs, cattle, fish, crustaceans, mollusks and amphibians [9-13].

Probiotics have been incorporated through diet in order to maintain the balance of the intestinal flora of animals, preventing digestive tract diseases, improving the digestibility of feed, leading to increased use of nutrients and causing better zootechnical performance of animals [14, 15].


2. Probiotic organisms

The requirements that a probiotic organism must meet are [16]:

  1. Resistance to the acid stomach environment, bile and pancreatic enzymes;

  2. Accession to the cells of the intestinal mucosa;

  3. Capacity for colonization;

  4. Staying alive for a long period of time, during the transport, storage, so that they can colonize the host efficiently;

  5. Production of antimicrobial substances against the pathogenic bacteria; and

  6. Absence of translocation.

The species normally used as probiotics in animal nutrition are usually non-pathogenic normal microflora, such as lactic-acid bacteria (Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Streptococcus and Enterococcus) and yeasts as Saccharomyces spp. (Table 1).


3. Mechanisms of action

The mechanisms of action of bacteria used as probiotics, although not yet fully elucidated, are described as [14, 15, 18]:

  1. Competition for binding sites: also known as "competitive exclusion", where probiotics bacteria bind with the binding sites in the intestinal mucosa, forming a physical barrier, preventing the connection by pathogenic bacteria;

  2. Production of antibacterial substances: probiotic bacteria synthesize compounds like hydrogen peroxide and bacteriocins, which have antibacterial action, mainly in relation to pathogenic bacteria. They also produce organic acids that lower the environment's pH of the gastrointestinal tract, preventing the growth of various pathogens and development of certain species of Lactobacillus;

  3. Competition for nutrients: the lack of nutrients available that may be used by pathogenic bacteria is a limiting factor for their maintenance;

  4. Stimulation of immune system: some probiotics bacteria are directly linked to the stimulation of the immune response, by increasing the production of antibodies, activation of macrophages, T-cell proliferation and production of interferon.

AspergillusA. niger, A. orizae
BacillusB. coagulans, B. lentus, B. licheniformis, B. subtilis
BifidobacteriumB. animalis, B. bifidum, B. longun, B. thermophylum
LactobacillusL. acidophillus, L. brevis, L. bulgaricus, L. casei, L. cellobiosis, L. fermentarum, L. curvatus, L. lactis, L. plantarum, L. reuterii, L. delbruekii,
PediococcusP. acidilacticii, P. cerevisae, P. pentosaceus, P. damnosus
SaccharomycesS. cerevisiae, S. boulardii
StreptococcusS. cremoris, S. faecium, S. lactis, S. intermedius, S. thermophyllus, S. diacetylatis

Table 1.

Microorganisms recognized as safe and used as probiotics in animals. Source: [17]

The mechanism of action of yeasts still needs substantiation by means of research. A likely mechanism of action of yeasts is related to total inhibition (in vitro) or partial inhibition of pathogens. Inactive yeasts contain large quantities of protein and polysaccharides in its walls, which can act positively in the immune system and in the absorption of nutrients. In addition, yeasts produce nutritious metabolites in digestive tract that boost animal performance, besides possessing minerals (Mn, Co, Zn) and vitamins (A, B12, D3) that enhance the action of beneficial microorganisms [19].

Although some mechanisms had been suggested on the action of probiotics, they are not completely clarified, but it is known that they inhibit growth of pathogenic microorganism by producing antimicrobial compounds; they compete with pathogens for adhesion sites and nutrients; and they model immune system of the host [20].


4. Selection of probiotics

Briefly, for the use of a given microorganism as probiotic, it is necessary its isolation, characterization and testing certifying its probiotic efficiency (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Diagram for selection of probiotics

First a source of microorganisms (e.g. digestive tract of healthy animals) must be selected.

After, the microorganisms with which the work is to be carried out are isolated and identified by means of selective culture.

Then a new culture with only the colonies of interest for conducting in vitro evaluations (inhibition of pathogens; pathogenicity to target species; resistance conditions of host; among others) is performed.

In case of the absence of restrictions on the use of the target species, experiments with in vivo supplementation, and small and large scale, are carried out to check if there are real benefits to the host.

Finally, the probiotic that presented significantly satisfactory result can be produced commercially and utilized.


5. Use of probiotic in aquaculture

Probiotics in aquaculture may act in a manner similar to that observed for terrestrial animals.

However, the relationship of aquatic organisms with the farming environment is much more complex than the one involving terrestrial animals.

Because of this intimate relationship between animal and farming environment, the traditional definition of probiotics is insufficient for aquaculture.

In this sense, Verschuere and colleagues [21] suggest a broader definition:

“It is a microbial supplement with living microorganism with beneficial effects to the host, by modifying its microbial community associated with the host or its farming environment, ensuring better use of artificial food and its nutritional value by improving the host's response to diseases and improving the quality of the farming environment.”

The microorganisms present in the aquatic environment are in direct contact with the animals, with the gills and with the food supplied, having easy access to the digestive tract of the animal.

Among the microorganisms present in the aquatic environment are potentially pathogenic microorganisms, which are opportunists, i.e., they take advantage of some animal's stress situation (high density, poor nutrition) to cause infections, worsening in zootechnical performance and even death.

For this reason, the use of probiotics for aquatic organisms aims not only the direct benefit to the animal, but also their effect on the farming environment.

Bergh and colleagues [22] observed that, when starting its first feeding, the intestinal flora of the Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) changed from a prevalence of Flavobacterium spp. to Aeromonas spp./Vibrio spp. showing the influence of the external environment and food on the microbial community of this fish.

Vibrio spp., Plesiomonas shigelloides, and Aeromonas spp. are the main causative agents of diseases in aquaculture, and may even cause food infections in humans.

The interaction between the environment and the host in an aquatic environment is complex. The microorganisms present in the water influence the microbiota of the host's intestine and vice versa.

Makridis and colleagues [23] demonstrated that the provision of two strains of bacteria via food directly into the farming water of the incubators of turbot larvae (Scophthalmus maximus) promoted the maintenance of the bacteria in the environment, as well as the colonization of the digestive tract of the larvae.

Changes in salinity, temperature and dissolved oxygen variations, change the conditions that are favorable to different organisms, with consequent changes in dominant species, which could lead to the loss of effectiveness of the product.

Accordingly, the addition of a given probiotic in the farming water of aquatic organisms must be constant, because the conditions of environment suffer periodic changes.

Thus, the variety of microorganisms present must therefore be considered in the choice of probiotic to be used in aquaculture.

Intensive farming systems utilize high stocking densities, among other stressors (e.g. management), which often end up resulting in low growth and feed efficiency rates, besides of weakness in the immune system, making these animals susceptible to the presence of opportunistic pathogens present in the environment.

In this sense, the effect of probiotics on the immune system has led to a large number of researches with beneficial results on the health of aquatic organisms, although it has not yet been clarified how they act.

In addition, probiotics can also be used to promote the growth of aquatic organisms, whether by direct aid in the absorption of nutrients, or by their supply.

Probiotics most used in aquaculture are those belonging to the genus Bacillus spp. (B. subtilis, B. licheniformis and B. circulans), Bifidobacterium spp. (B. bifidum, B. lactis, and B. thermophilum), lactic-acid bacteria (Lactobacillus spp. e Carnobacterium spp.) and yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae [24,25].

The benefits observed in the supplementation of probiotics in aquaculture include [21, 26-28]:

  1. Improvement of the nutritional value of food;

  2. Enzymatic contribution to digestion;

  3. Inhibition of pathogens;

  4. Growth promoting factors;

  5. Improvement in immune response; and

  6. Farming water quality.

Among the most recent studies that point to the effect of the use of probiotics for various aquatic organisms stand those for fish [21], shrimps [26], mollusks [30] and frogs [29].

5.1. Results of probiotics in fish farming

5.1.1. Immune system

Gatesoupe [31] observed that turbot larvae (Scophthalmus maximus) fed rotifera enriched with lactic-acid bacteria increased resistance against infection by Vibrio spp.

The joint administration of Lactobacillus fructivorans and Lactobacillus plantarum through dry or live feed promoted the colonization of the intestine of sea bream larvae (Sparus aurata) and the decrease in mortality of animals during larviculture and nursery [32].

Gram and colleagues [33] showed that the use of Pseudomonas fluorescens AH2 as probiotics decreased the mortality of juveniles of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to Vibrio anguillarum.

Kumar and colleagues [34] observed higher survival rate of carp Labeo rohita fed Bacillus subtilis, submitted to intraperitoneal injection with Aeromonas hydrophila.

Oral administration of Clostridium butyricum increased phagocytic activity of leucocytes of rainbow trout [35].

Nikoskelainen and colleagues [36] observed that the administration of Lactobacillus rhamnosus at 105 UFC g-1, stimulated the respiratory burst in rainbow trout.

Other studies showed an increase in immune response with the use of probiotics for different species, such Carnobacterium maltaromaticum B26 and Carnobacterium divergens B33 for rainbow trout [38], Lactobacillus belbrüeckii, Bacillus subtilis and Debaryomyces hansenii for gilthead seabream [39-41], B. subtilis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa for Labeo rohita [42,43], Lactococcus lactis for Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) [44] and B. simplex DR-834 to carp (Cyprinus carpio) [45].

5.1.2. Performance

Tovar and colleagues [37] incorporated the yeast Debaryomyces hansenii to the feed of sea bass larvae and observed improvement in the maturation of the digestive tract of this species. According to the authors this satisfactory effect was due to the high secretion rate of spermine and spermidine by yeasts.

Increase of weight gain and survival was observed for turbot larvae fed rotifera enriched with acid-lactic bacteria [31].

Queiroz and Boyd [46] observed enhancement of the zootechnical performance and survival of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) when a mixture of Bacillus spp. was added to the farming water.

Using yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as probiotic for Israeli carp, Noh and colleagues [47] observed an increase in the food efficiency of this species.

Lara-Flores and colleagues [48] concluded that the use of Saccharomyces cerevisiae as probiotic for fry of Nile tilapia resulted in better growth and food efficiency, suggesting that this yeast promotes adequate growth in tilapia farming. In this study it was observed that fish fed control diet showed reduced survival and digestibility of feed with increased storage density, considered a stressful factor for growing fish. This result highlighted the efficiency of the use of this probiotic in stressful situations.

Other positive results of the probiotic on the performance of fish are found for Labeo rohita fingerlings [49], Nile tilapia [50] and common carp [51].

5.2. Results of the use of probiotics in shrimp farming

5.2.1. Immune system

In relation to farmed shrimp, bacterial diseases are considered as the largest cause of mortality in larvae.

The administration of a mixture of bacteria (Bacillus spp. and Vibrio spp.) positively influenced on survival and had protective effect against Vibrio harveyi and the white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) [15]. This result was due to stimulation of the immune system, by increasing phagocytosis and antibacterial activity.

The administration of a commercial probiotic for the larvae of Marsupenaeus japonicus resulted in increased survival (97%) being significantly higher than the control treatment [52].

Thus, the use of Bacillus coagulans SC8168 as probiotic for postlarvae of Litopenaeus vannamei resulted in higher survival of animals [53].

In a study with tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon), the inoculation of Bacillus S11, a saprophyte strain, resulted in higher survival of postlarvae challenged by a luminescent pathogenic bacterial culture [54].

Bacillus subtilis and Lactobacillus plantarum for Litopenaeus vannamei [55-58], Pediococcus acidilactici to Litopenaeus stylirostris [59] and Bacillus NL110 and Vibrio NE17 for Macrobrachium rosenberguii [60] also proved effective in improving the immune system of these animals.

5.2.2. Performance

Lin and colleagues [61] used Bacillus spp. in the diet of Litopenaeus vannamei enhancing digestibility rates of the feed.

Ziaei-Nejad and colleagues [26] added the probiotic Bacillus spp. in the farming of Fenneropenaeus indicus larvae and observed survival increase, and also an increase in the activities of lipase, protease and amylase enzymes in the digestive tract of shrimps.

Several studies have shown that the bacteria of the genus Bacillus spp. secrete exoenzymes (proteases, lipases and carbohydrases) that can help improve digestion and nutrient absorption increase, resulting in better use of food and animal growth [62].

5.3. Results from the use of probiotics in the farming of others aquatic organisms

5.3.1. Mollusks

The culture of oysters and scallops has been introduced in many countries, however, mass mortalities of larvae have frequently occurred and to prevent these mortalities, most farmers use antibiotics [63]. Thus, the use of probiotic bacteria has been fueled, especially during the hatchery [64].

Riquelme and colleagues [65] identified a bacteria (Alteromonas haloplanktis) capable of reducing the mortality of Chilean scallop larvae (Argopecten purpuratus) when exposed to 103 colony forming units per milliliter (UFC ml-1) of Vibrio anguillarum.

Cultures of Alteromonas media control Vibrio tubiashii infections in larvae of Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) [66].

Other bacteria with probiotic potential for mollusks such as Pacific oysters (Alteromonas spp.) [67, 68], Scallop larvae (Roseobacter spp., Vibrio spp., Pseudomonas spp., Arthrobacter spp.) [69-71], promoted growth, survival and immune response of animals.

5.3.2. Frogs

For Bull Frog (Lithobates catesbeianus) with an average weight of 3.13 g, the addition of probiotic Bacillus subtilis in different doses (2.5, 5.0 and 10 g kg-1 feed) resulted in improved weight gain, feed conversion and apparent survival, when compared to control treatment (without added probiotic); however, the immunostimulant effect was demonstrated through the increased phagocytic capacity of animals [72].

Likewise, Dias and colleagues [29] observed the beneficial effect of two commercial probiotics on the immune system of L. catesbeianus.

5.4. Probiotics and quality of water in aquaculture

Another aspect of the use of probiotics in aquaculture is the improvement of the quality of the water in the farming nurseries. Increases in organic load, levels of phosphorous and nitrogen compounds are growing concerns in aquaculture.

Boyd [73] noted the beneficial effect of probiotics on organic matter decomposition and reduction of the levels of phosphate and nitrogen compounds.

Aerobic denitrifying bacteria are considered good candidates to reduce nitrate or nitrite to N2 in aquaculture waters.

To this end some bacteria were isolated in shrimp farming tanks. Acinetobacter, Arthrobacter, Bacillus, Cellulosimicrobium, Halomonas, Microbacterium, Paracoccus, Pseudomonas, Sphingobacterium and Stenotrophomas are some of the denitrifying bacteria already identified [28].

Reduction in levels of phosphorous and nitrogen compounds in the farming water of shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei was also observed when commercial probiotics were added to the water [27].

Similarly, for the shrimp Penaeus monodon, an improvement in the quality of farming water was observed with the addition of Bacillus spp. as probiotic [74].

Gram-positive bacteria are better converting organic matter into CO2 than gram-negative bacteria. Thus, during a production cycle, higher levels of these bacteria can reduce the accumulation of particulate organic carbon. Thus, maintaining higher levels of these gram-positive bacteria in production pond, farmers can minimize the buildup of dissolved and particulate organic carbon during the culture cycle while promoting more stable phytoplankton blooms through the increased production of CO2 [21].


6. Conclusion

The results reported so far with the use of probiotics for aquatic organisms are promising. However, many works have not achieved satisfactory results.

Sometimes in experiments in which aquatic organisms are challenged by some pathogenic agent, the probiotic organism does not exhibit inhibiting action against the pathogen, resulting in mortality.

Similarly, the conditions to which the animals are subjected during farming may directly influence the effectiveness of probiotics. Thus, when not subjected to stressful situations, the results often do not show a significant effect of probiotics on the performance of animals.

In general, the effects of adding probiotics tend to be most striking in unsuitable operating conditions or in conditions of stress, when the microflora is unbalanced, primarily in young animals.

Among these factors, the most commonly featured are: temperature above or below the thermal comfort zone; presence of pathogens; poor sanitary conditions; stressful management; change in nutrition; transport; high storage density; after treatment with antibiotics; sudden change of environment.

Also, the results obtained in experiments with probiotics may be affected by factors such as: type of probiotic microorganism; method and quantity administered; condition of the host; condition of intestinal microbiota; age of the animal.


  1. 1. WHO/FAO.Joint World Health Organization/Food and Agricultural Organization Working Group. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Probiotics in Food 2002. Ontario, Canada
  2. 2. VreseM.Probioticsprebiotics.symbiotic-approachinga.definitionThe American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2001S-364S.
  3. 3. ShorttC.Theprobiotic.centuryhistorical.currentperspectives.Trends in Food Science & Technology19991012411417
  4. 4. De VreseM.MarteauP. R.ProbioticsPrebioticsEffects.ondiarrhea.The Journal of Nutrition 2007S-811S.
  5. 5. HeT.PriebeM. G.ZhongY.HuangC.HarmsenH. J.RaangsG. C.AntoineJ. M.WellingandG. W.VonkR. J.Effects of yogurt and bifidobacteria supplementation on the colonic microbiota in lactose-intolerant subjects. Journal of Applied Microbiology20081042595604
  6. 6. NagalaR.RoutrayC.Clinical case study multispecies probiotic supplement minimizes symptoms of irritable Bowel Syndrome. US Gastroenterology & Hepatology Review 2011713637
  7. 7. JainS.YadavH.SinhaP. R.KapilaS.NaitoY.MarottaF.Anti-allergic effects of probiotic Dahi through modulation of the gut immune systemTurkish Journal of Gastroenterology2010213244250
  8. 8. ChenX.FruehaufJ.GoldsmithJ.XuH.KatcharK.KoonH.ZhaoD.Kokkotou. E.PothoulakisC.KellyC.Saccharomyces boulardii inhibits EGF receptor signaling and intestinal tumor growth in Apc(min) mice. Gastroenterology 20091373914923
  9. 9. AlyS. M.Abd-Rahman ElA. M.JohnG.MohamedM. F.Characterization of some bacteria isolated from Oreochromis niloticus and their potential use as probioticsAquaculture20081 EOF
  10. 10. IgnatovaM.SredkovaV.MarashevaV.Effect of dietary inclusion of probiotic on chickens performance and some blood. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 2009
  11. 11. SoleimaniN. A.KermanshahiR. K.YakhchaliB.SattariT. N.Antagonistic activity of probiotic lactobacilli against Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitisAfrican Journal of Microbiology Research201042021692173
  12. 12. Veizaj-DeliaE.PiubT.LekajcP.TafajM.Using combined probiotic to improve growth performance of weaned piglets on extensive farm conditionsLivestock Science20101341249251
  13. 13. Gatesoupe FJ.The use of probiotics in aquaculture.Aquaculture19991801147165
  14. 14. FullerR.ProblemsprospectsIn.FullerR.(edProbiotics-Thescientific.basisLondon.ChapmanHall1992377386
  15. 15. BalcázarJ. L.BlasI.Zarzuela-RuizI.CunninghamD.VendrellD.MúsquizJ. L.The role of probiotics in aquacultureVeterinary Microbiology20061141173186
  16. 16. CaprilesV. D.SilvaK. E. A.FisbergM.Prebióticosprobióticos. e.simbióticosNova.tendênciano.mercado dealimentos.funcionaisRevista Nutrição Brasil 200546327335
  17. 17. LyonsP.Yeastout.ofthe.blackbox.Feed Manangement 19863710814
  18. 18. JinL. Z.HoY. W.AbdullahN.JalaludinS.Probioticsin.poultrymodes.ofaction.World’s Poultry Science Journal 1997534351368
  19. 19. HillJ.TraceyS. V.WillisM.JonesL.EllisA. D.Yeast culture in equine nutrition and physiology. In: Proceedings of Alltech’s Annual Symposium 2006. Available from: htmacessed 31 April 2012
  20. 20. OelschlaegetT.Mechanisms of probiotic actions- A review. International Journal of Medical Microbiology 201030015762
  21. 21. VerschuereL.RombautG.SorgeloosP.VerstraeteW.Probiotic bacteria as biological control agents in aquacultureMicrobiology and Molecular Biology Review 2000644655671
  22. 22. BerghØ.HansenG. H.TaxtR. E.Experimental infection of eggs and yolk sac larvae of halibut, Hippoglossus hippoglossus L.Journal of Fish Diseases1992155379391
  23. 23. MakridisP.FjellheimA. J.SkjermoJ.VadsteinO.Colonization of the gut in first feeding turbot by bacterial strains added to the water or biencapusated in rotifers. Aquaculture International 200085367380
  24. 24. LeeY. K.NomotoK.SalminenS.GorbashS. L.Handbookof.probioticsNew.YorkWiley; 1999
  25. 25. Sanders ME, Klaenhammer TR. Invited review: the scientific basis of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM functionality as a probiotic.Journal of Dairy Science2001842319331
  26. 26. Ziaei-NejadS.RezaeiM.TakamiG.LovettD.MirvaghefiA.ShakouriM.The effect of Bacillus spp. bacteria used as probiotics on digestive enzyme activity, survival and growth in the Indian white shrimp Fenneropenaeus indicusAquaculture2006516 EOF
  27. 27. WangY.XuZ.XiaM.The effectiveness of commercial probiotics in Northern White Shrimp Penaeus vannamei pondsFisheries Science200571510341039
  28. 28. WangA.ZhengG.LiaoS.HuangH.SunR.Diversity analysis of bacteria capable of removing nitrate/nitrite in a shrimp pond. Acta Ecologica Sinica 200727519371943
  29. 29. Dias DC, De Stéfani, MV, Ferreira CM, França FM, Ranzani-Paiva MJT, Santos AA.Hematologic and immunologic parameters of bullfrogs, Lithobates catesbeianus, fed probiotics. Aquaculture Research 201041710641071
  30. 30. Macey BM, Coyne VE.Improved growth rate and disease resistance in farmed Haliotis midae through probiotic treatmentAquaculture2005249 EOF261 EOF
  31. 31. Gatesoupe FJ.Lactic acid bacteria increase the resistance of turbot larvae, Scophthalmus maximus, against pathogenic VibrioAquatic Living Resource 199471277282
  32. 32. CarnevaliO.ZamponiM. C.SulpizioR.RolloA.NardiM.OrpianesiC.SilviS.CaggianoM.PolzonettiA. M.CresciA.Administration of probiotic strain to improve sea bream wellness during developmentAquaculture International2004377 EOF386 EOF
  33. 33. GramL.MelchiorsenJ.SpanggardB.HuberI.NielsenT.Inhibition of Vibrio anguillarum by Pseudomonas fluorescens AH2, a possible probiotic treatment of fish.Applied and Environmental Microbiology1999653969973
  34. 34. KumarR.MukherjeeS. C.PrasadK. P.PalA. K.Evaluation of Bacillus subtilis as a probiotic to indian major carp Labeo rohita (Ham.)Aquaculture Research2006371212151221
  35. 35. SakaiM.YoshidaT.AstutaS.KobayashiM.Enhancement of resistance to vibriosis in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum) by oral administration of Clostridium butyricum bacterin.Journal of Fish Disease 1995182187190
  36. 36. NikoskelainenS.OuwehandA. C.BylundG.SalminenS.LiliusE. M.Immune enhancement in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) by potential probiotic bacteria (Lactobacillus rhamnosus).Fish & Shellfish Immunology2003155443452
  37. 37. TovarD.ZamboninoJ.CahuC.GatesoupeF. J.Vázquez-JuárezR.LéselR.Effect of live yeast incorporation in compound diet on digestive enzyme activity in sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) larvaeAquaculture2002113 EOF
  38. 38. KimD.AustinB.Innate immune responses in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum) induced by probioticsFish & Shellfish Immunology 2006215513524
  39. 39. SalinasI.CuestaA.MAEstebanMeseguer. J.Dietary administration of Lactobacillus delbrüeckii and Bacillus subtilis, single or combined, on gilthead seabream cellular innate immune responses.Fish & Shellfish Immunology20051916777
  40. 40. Reyes-BecerrilM.SalinasI.CuestaA.MeseguerJ.Tovar-RamirezD.AscencioValleF.MAEsteban2008256731739
  41. 41. SalinasI.AbelliL.BertoniF.PicchiettiS.RoqueA.FuronesD.CuestaA.MeseguerJ.MAEstebanMonospecies and multispecies probiotic formulations produce different systemic and local immunostimulatory effects in the gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.).Fish & Shellfish Immunology2008114 EOF23 EOF
  42. 42. NayakS. K.SwainP.MukhrjeeS. C.Effect of dietary supplementation of probiotic and vitamin C on the immune response of Indian major carp, Labeo rohita (Ham.)Fish & Shellfish Immunology2007234892896
  43. 43. GiriS. S.SenS. S.SukumaranV.Effects of dietary supplementation of potential probiotic Pseudomonas aeruginosa VSG-2 on the innate immunity and disease resistance of tropical freshwater fish, Labeo rohitaFish & Shellfish Immunology 201232611351140
  44. 44. ZhouX.WangY.YaoJ.LiW.Inhibition ability of probiotic Lactococcus lactis, against A. hydrophila and study of its immunostimulatory effect in tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus).International Journal of EngineeringScience and Technology 2010277380
  45. 45. WangG.LiuY.LiF.GaoH.LeiY.LiuX.Immunostimulatory activities of Bacillus simplex DR-834 to carp (Cyprinus carpio)Fish & Shellfish Immunology2010293378387
  46. 46. QueirozF.BoydC.Effects of a bacterial inoculum in channel catfish ponds.Journal of the World Aquaculture Society19982916773
  47. 47. NohS. H.HanK.WonT. H.ChoiY. J.Effectof.antibioticsenzyme.yeastculture.probioticson.thegrowth.performanceof.Israelicarp.Korean Journal of Animal Science 1994361480486
  48. 48. Lara-FloresM.MAOlvea-Novoa-MendezGuzman.López-MadridB. E.W.Use of the bacteria Streptococcus faecium and Lactobacillus acidophilus, and the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as growth promoters in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)Aquaculture2003193 EOF
  49. 49. GhoshK.SenS. K.RayA. K.Supplementation of Lactobacillus acidophilus in compound diets for Labeo rohita fingerlings. Indian Journal of Fisheries 2004514521526
  50. 50. El-Haroun ER, Goda AMAS, Chowdhury MAK.Effect of dietary Biogen® supplementation as a growth promoter on growth performance and feed utilization of Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (L.). Aquaculture Research 2006371414731480
  51. 51. FaramarziM.KiaalvandiS.IranshahiF.The effect of probiotics on growth performance and body composition of common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 2011101824082413
  52. 52. El-Sersy NA, Abdel-Razek FA, Taha SM.Evaluation of various probiotic bacteria for the survival of Penaeus japonicus larvaeFresenius Environmental Bulletin2006A) 15061511
  53. 53. ZhouX.WangY.LiW.Effect of probiotic on larvae shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) based on water quality, survival rate and digestive enzyme activitiesAquaculture2009349 EOF353 EOF
  54. 54. RengpipatS. T.PhianphakW.PiyatiratitivorakulS.MenasavetaP.Effects of a probiotic bacterium in black tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon survival and growthAquaculture1998301 EOF
  55. 55. TsengD.HoP.HuangS.ChengS.ShiuY.ChiuC.LiuC.Enhancement of immunity and disease resistance in the white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, by the probiotic, Bacillus subtilis E20Fish & Shellfish Immunology2009262339344
  56. 56. LiuK.ChiuC.ShiuY.ChengW.LiuC.Effects of the probiotic, Bacillus subtilis E20, on the survival, development, stress tolerance, and immune status of white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei larvae.Fish & Shellfish Immunology 2010837 EOF844 EOF
  57. 57. SilvaE. F.MASoaresCalazans. N. F.VogeleyJ. L.ValleB. C.SoaresR.PeixotoS.Effect of probiotic (Bacillus spp.) addition during larvae and postlarvae culture of the white shrimp Litopenaeus vannameiAquaculture Research201119
  58. 58. KongnumK.HongpattarakereT.Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum isolated from digestive tract of wild shrimp on growth and survival of white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) challenged with Vibrio harveyiFish & Shellfish Immunology2012321170177
  59. 59. CastexM.LemaireP.WabeteN.ChimL.Effect of Pediococcus acidilactici on antioxidant defences and oxidative stress of Litopenaeus stylirostris under Vibrio nigripulchritudo challenge.Fish & Shellfish Immunology2010284622631
  60. 60. RahimanK. M. M.JesmiY.ThomasA. P.HathaA. A. M.Probiotic effect of Bacillus NL110 and Vibrio NE17 on the survival, growth performance and immune response of Macrobrachium rosenbergii (de Man)Aquaculture Research2010419120134
  61. 61. LinH. Z.GuoZ.YangY.ZhengW. L. I. Z. J.Effect of dietary probiotics on apparent digestibility coefficients of nutrients of white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei BooneAquaculture Research2004351514411447
  62. 62. ASNinaweSelvin. J. Probiotics in shrimp aquaculture: Avenues and challenges. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 2009; 35 1 4366 .
  63. 63. FarzanfarA.The use of probiotics in shrimp aquacultureFEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology2006482149158
  64. 64. VaseeharanB.RamasamyP.Control of pathogenic Vibrio spp. by Bacillus subtilis BT23, a possible probiotic treatment for black tiger shrimp Penaeus monodonLetters in Applied Microbiology20033628387
  65. 65. RiquelmeC.HayashidaG.ArayaR.UchidaA.SatomiM.IshidaY.Isolation of a native bacterial strain from the scallop Argopecten purpuratus with inhibitory effects against pathogenic vibriosJournal of Shellfish Research1996152369374
  66. 66. GibsonL. F.WoodworthJ.GeorgeA. M.Probiotic activity of Aeromonas media on the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, when challenged with Vibrio tubiashiiAquaculture1998111 EOF120 EOF
  67. 67. DouilletP.LangdonC. J.Effects of marine bacteria on the culture of axenic oyster Crassostrea gigas (Thunberg) larvaeBiological Bulletin199318413651
  68. 68. Douillet AP, Langdon CJ.Use of a probiotic for the culture of larvae of the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas, ThunbergAquaculture199411912540
  69. 69. Ruiz-PonteC.SamainJ. F.SánchezJ. L.NicolasJ. L.The benefit of a Roseobacter species on the survival of scallop larvaeMarine Biotechnology1999115259
  70. 70. RiquelmeC.ArayaR.EscribanoR.Selective incorporation of bacteria by Argopecten purpuratus larvae: implications for the use of probiotics in culturing systems of the Chilean scallopAquaculture200025 EOF
  71. 71. CERiquelmeJorquera.MARojasA. I.AvendañoR. E.ReyesN.Addition of inhibitor-producing bacteria to mass cultures of Argopecten purpuratus larvae (Lamarck, 1819)Aquaculture2001111 EOF
  72. 72. FrançaF. M.DiasD. C.TeixeiraP. C.ASMarcantônio DeStéfani. M. V.AntonucciA.RochaG.Ranzani-PaivaM. J. T.FerreiraC. M.Efeito do probiótico Bacillus subtilis no crescimento, sobrevivência e fisiologia de rãs-touro (Rana catesbeiana). Boletim do Instituto de Pesca 2008343403412
  73. 73. Boyd CE.Aquaculture sustainability and environmental issuesWorld Aquaculture19993021072
  74. 74. DalminG.KathiresanK.PurushothamanA.Effect of probiotics on bacterial population and health status of shrimp in culture pond ecosystem.Indian Journal of Experimental Biology2001399939942

Written By

Rafael Vieira de Azevedo and Luís Gustavo Tavares Braga

Submitted: April 11th, 2012 Published: October 3rd, 2012