Ingredients and chemical composition (%; on dry matter basis) of experimental diets containing graded levels of
Abstract
The use of antibiotics as disease control agents has become contentious due to rise in drug-resistant bacteria such as Psuedomonas aeruginosa and Aeromonas hydrophilla. Studies have shown antibacterial potentials of some probiotics such as Lactobacillus acidophillus as promising alternative. Therefore, effects of diets fortified with Lactobacillus acidophillus on gut ecology and health status of African River prawn, Macrobranchium vollenhovenii were investigated. Prawns fed diets fortified with Lactobacillus acidophillus were challenged with Psuedomonas aeruginosa (1 × 107 cfu/mL) and Aeromonas hydrophilla (5 × 105 cfu/mL) using bath method for 14 days. Total viable and total enterobacteriaceae counts were determined on plate count agar and McConkey agar, respectively. Haemolymph (mL), total haemocyte count (cells/mL), catalase (mg/g protein), superoxide dismutase (mg/g protein, respiratory burst activity (μmoles) and survival rate (%) were evaluated using standard procedures. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and ANOVA at p = 0.05. Results revealed that Marobranchium vollenhovenii-fed supplemented diets had reduced bacteria load, gut flora dominated by beneficial bacteria, enhanced immune system and protection against Aeromonas hydrophila at 103 cfu/mL inclusion level and could be used as immunodulation against Aeromonas infection.
Keywords
- gut microbiota
- innate immune response
- infection
- bacteria
1. Introduction
Prawn such as
Worldwide total crusteceans was 6,915,100 tonnes representing about 7% of total aquaculture production [2]. This achievement was attributed to transformation of farming techniques from simple methods to an improved and intensive aquaculture which promotes high seed quantities, adequate knowledge of stocking density, supply of required fish feeds. However, in spite of the success recorded in the prawn farms in recent times, the performance are far from it demand. The poor performance has been associated with many constraints, such as, modern knowledge in the science of fish farming, government policy, fish feed industry, marketing, distribution, and diseases. One of the major barriers to prawn farming are diseases and their management.
Disease is an establishment of pathogens in prawn tissues which cause disorderliness in physiological function of the fish that result in physical, biological and economical losses. Diseases arise as a result of complex interaction among the fish, pathogen and culture environment [3, 4]. Fish has inbuilt immune systems and defence mechanisms which protect them from being infected with pathogens. But practice of intensive farming system has the possibility of exposing prawn to infections. However, bacteria have been reported to be responsible for about 70–80% of disease infection in fish [5]. Some important bacteria in prawn farming are
The problems of increase antibiotic resistance bacteria, residual effect and environmental unfriendly experienced in the use of antibiotics could ameliorate by probiotics application. Therefore, current studies have moved toward search for alternative such as probiotics. Probiotics are life microbial feed supplements that improve health host by modify the gastrointestinal tract of the fish. Fish, being a hydrophilic animal rely solely on the environment (water) which filtering through the body and gill as fish performs it physiological function would benefit from use of probiotics. Probiotics enhance the nutrient utilisation, modulate gut flora, inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria and improve growth and immune system of the fish as reported in the previous studies [6, 7]. Several probiotics have been used in aquaculture but probiotics from lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Preparation of experimental diets
Feed ingredients were purchased from a reliable store Melbourne, Australia.
Ingredients (%) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Groundnut cake | 25.00 | 25.00 | 25.00 | 25.00 | 25.00 | 25.00 |
Soya meal | 24.00 | 24.00 | 24.00 | 24.00 | 24.00 | 24.00 |
Fish meal | 22.15 | 22.15 | 22.15 | 22.15 | 22.15 | 22.15 |
DCP | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Salt | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Flour | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.89 |
Vegetable oil | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
Maize | 24.96 | 24.96 | 24.96 | 24.96 | 24.96 | 24.96 |
Premix* | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
LA | 0 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 |
TOTAL | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
Moisture | 9.16 | 9.16 | 9.16 | 9.16 | 9.16 | 9.16 |
Crude protein | 40.00 | 40.04 | 40.10 | 40.11 | 40.12 | 40.12 |
Ether extract | 9.63 | 9.63 | 9.54 | 9.63 | 9.66 | 9.65 |
Total ash | 8.27 | 8.27 | 8.27 | 8.27 | 8.27 | 8.27 |
Carbohydrates | 20.17 | 20.13 | 20.16 | 20.06 | 20.02 | 20.03 |
Crude fibre | 12.77 | 12.77 | 12.77 | 12.77 | 12.77 | 12.77 |
Table 1.
Premixes = HI-MIX®AQUA (Fish) each 1 kg contains; vitamin A, 4000,000 International Unit (IU); vitamin D3, 8,00,000 IU; vitamin E, 40, 000 IU; vitamin K3, 1600 mg; vitamin B1, 4000 mg; vitamin B2, 3000 mg; vitamin B6, 3800 mg; vitamin B12, 3 mcg; Nicotinic acid 18,000 mg; Pantothenic acid, 8000 mg; Folic acid, 800 mg; Biotin, 100 mcg; Choline chloride 120,000 mg; Iron, 8000 mg; Copper, 800 mg; Manganese, 6000 mg; Zinc, 20,000 mg; Iodine, 400 mg; Selenium, 40 mg; Vitamin C C(coated), 60,000 mg; Inositol, 10,000 mg; Colbat, 150 mg; Lysine, 10,000 mg; Methionine, 10,000 mg; Antioxidant, 25,000 mg.
Note: DCP = Dicalcium phosphate; LA =
2.2. Experimental design and procedure
2.3. Evaluation of gut microbiota
Three prawns were collected from each experimental unit before and after the trial for gut microbiota evaluation. Each prawn was deactivated in freezer at −20°C for 10 min and sterilised using formalin (50 ppm). The guts were aseptically collected and weighed into sterile universal bottles containing peptone water (0.1%) to release the available bacteria for a period of 2 h. 1 mL was taken from each sample bottle and diluted 10-folds and subsequently serially diluted with dilution factor of 10−4. 2 mL was taken from each diluted sample and dispensed into two Petri dishes (1 mL to each). The first dish received plate count agar (PCA, LAB M, LAB149) for total viable count (TVC), while the second Petri dish received MacConkey agar (LAB M, LAB002) for total enterobactereceae count (TEB) using the pure plate count method [11, 12]. Each dilution was overlaid, respectively, with PCA and MacConkey that have been cooled to 50°C. At this temperature, agar is still in liquid form [12].
The dishes were then gently swirled to mix the bacteria with the liquid agar. The mixtures were allowed to harden. When the mixture was hardened, the individual cells were fixed in place and incubated (Newlife Laboratory Incubator NL-9052-1) for 24 h at 37°C to allow distinguished colonies to form. The colonies formed were counted using Wincom Colony Counter (16 W, 220 V ± 10%, 50 Hz). The experiments were replicated three times. The TVC and TEB were expressed in Log10CFU/g [12].
2.4. Bacterial challenge
To evaluate prawn resistance to disease infection, a challenge test using the pathogenic bacteria,
2.5. Determination of innate immune response parameters
Three prawns were randomly selected from each experimental unit. The haemolymph was collected from the ventral part of the haemocoel of the second abdominal segment with the aid of a sterilised syringe and a 21-gauge disposable hypodermic needle containing 1 mL of Alserver’s solution and was transferred into anticoagulant bottle (EDTA). The plasma was prepared by centrifuged the haemolymph at 300× g for 10 min at 4°C. The haemocytes were suspended and adjusted to a concentration of 5 × 106 cells/mL in an ice-cold.
The innate immune parameters were measured using the diagnostic reagent kits (Randox® Laboratories, Crumlin, County Antrim, UK). Superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity was measured spectrophotochemically by the ferricytochrome c method using xanthine/xanthine oxidase as the source of superoxide radicals. The reaction mixture consisted of 50 mM potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.8), 0.1 mM EDTA, 0.1 mM xanthine, 0.013 mM cytochrome C and 0.024 IU/mL xanthine oxidase. One activity unit was defined as the amount of enzyme necessary to produce a 50% inhibition of the ferricytochrome C reduction rate measured at 550 nm. Catalase (CAT) activity was determined by measuring the decrease of H2O2 concentration at 240 nm according to [15]. The reaction mixture contained 50 mm potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) and 10.6 mM H2O2 freshly prepared.
The respiratory burst activity was measured using diagnostic reagent kits (Randox, London, UK) as described by [16]. Respiratory burst activity was quantified by the nitroblue tetrazolium (NBT) assay which measures the quantity of intracellular oxidative free radicals; according to [17], with some modification. Briefly, 100 mL of the haemocytes were added to each well of a 96 well microtitre plate (Nalge-Nunc, Hereford, UK). The plate was incubated at 25°C, for 2 h to allow attachment of cells. Unattached cells were washed off three times using fresh L-15 medium. L-15 medium was then supplemented with NBT (1 mg/mL) and phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA, SigmaeAldrich; 1 mg/mL) dissolved in dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO, Sigma), and 100 mL added to each well of the microtitre plate and incubated for 1 h at room temperature. After incubation, the supernatant removed from the plate and NBT reduction fixed with 100% methanol for 10 min. The plate was then washed with 70% methanol, and left to air dry. A mixture of 120 mL of 2 M potassium hydroxide and 140 mL DMSO was added to dissolve the resulting formazan blue crystals. The NBT reduction was measured using the microplate reader (Optica, Mikura Ltd., UK) at 630 nm, and respiratory burst activity was expressed as NBT reduction.
Total haemocyte count (THC) was performed in a haemocytomter using microscope. The phenolosidase activity (PO) was evaluated by measuring the formation of dopachrome L-dihydrophenylclamine (L-DOPA) at 490 nm with the aid of spectrophotometer. While reactive oxygen intermediates (ROI) were used to measure H2O2 by horseadish peroxidase (dependent oxidation of phenol red) while chemiluminescence was used to measure the light emission from reactive oxygen intermediates [18]. Lysozyme activity of fish sera was determined by using lysoplate technique [19]. In brief, 0.60 mg/mL
2.6. Statistical analysis
The results were presented as mean ± SE of three replicates. Prior to statistical analysis, all data were tested for normality of distribution using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The homogeneity of variances among different treatments was tested using Bartlett’s test. Then, data were subjected to one-way ANOVA to evaluate effects of
3. Results
The effects of
Parameters (log10cfu/mL) | ||
---|---|---|
TVC* | TEB* | |
Control | 6.32 ± 0.03a | 6.12 ± 0.02 |
101 | 6.21 ± 0.04 | 5.96 ± 0.11 |
102 | 6.18 ± 0.20 | 5.72 ± 0.38 |
103 | 6.01 ± 0.16 | 5.62 ± 0.12 |
104 | 5.91 ± 0.09 | 5.43 ± 0.13a |
105 | 5.81 ± 0.45 | 5.40 ± 0.90a |
Table 2.
Gut microbiota of
Means (Log10 cgu/mL) with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05), while, absence of letters means no significantly different (P > 0.05). TVC = Total viable bacteria count; TEB = Total enterobacterceae.
Table 3 depicts microbiota composition of
Parameters (log10cfu/mL) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | |
6.02 ± 0.09 | 5.92 ± 0.06 | 5.63 ± 0.26 | 5.57 ± 0.28a | 5.32 ± 0.04a | 5.15 ± 0.32a | |
6.06 ± 0.29a | 5.49 ± 0.03a | 5.38 ± 0.07 | 5.20 ± 0.22 | 4.90 ± 0.19 | 4.85 ± 0.04 | |
4.98 ± 0.07a | 6.08 ± 0.58 | 6.14 ± 0.02 | 6.15 ± 0.03 | 6.17 ± 0.41 | 6.26 ± 0.21 | |
6.24 ± 0.03 | 6.22 ± 0.91 | 6.20 ± 0.15 | 6.19 ± 0.33 | 6.18 ± 0.21 | 6.18 ± 0.05 |
Table 3.
Means (Log10 cgu/mL) with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05), while, absence of letters means no significantly different (P > 0.05).
Effects of
Parameters (log10cfu/mL) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | |
SOD (mg/g protein) | 0.41 ± 0.01a | 2.45 ± 0.02ab | 3.62 ± 0.05b | 6.33 ± 0.15 | 6.57 ± 0.55 | 6.82 ± 0.22 |
CAT mg/g protein) | 1.51 ± 0.02a | 2.04 ± 0.04a | 2.74 ± 0.01 | 3.06 ± 0.20 | 3.47 ± 0.21 | 3.85 ± 0.04 |
RBA | 165.4 ± 2.17a | 163.1 ± 3.13a | 172.8 ± 1.11b | 188.0 ± 2.15b | 215.4 ± 2.46 | 243.7 ± 2.85 |
THC | 12.06 ± 0.26a | 13.11 ± 0.05 | 13.53 ± 0.l8 | 14.02 ± 0.17 | 14.65 ± 0.78 | 14.82 ± 0.16 |
PO (U/mL) | 3.24 ± 0.43a | 3.51 ± 0.07 | 4.07 ± 0.16 | 4.33 ± 0.09 | 4.89 ± 0.31 | 5.21 ± 0.34 |
ROI | 5.27 ± 0.21a | 6.02 ± 0.15 | 6.31 ± 0.34 | 6.38 ± 0.21 | 6.54 ± 0.23 | 6.79 ± 0.29 |
Lysozyme activity | 8.13 ± 0.62a | 11.20 ± 0.38a | 13.05 ± 0.03 | 13.46 ± 0.78 | 13.78 ± 0.19 | 14.02 ± 0.18 |
Table 4.
Innate immune response parameters of
Means with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05), while, absence of letters means no significantly different (P > 0.05).
In addition, the exposure of prawn fed fortified diets to
Parameters (log10cfu/mL) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Initial stock | Survival (%) | Relative protection | |
Control | 30 | 23.3 ± 0.03a | 0.00 ± 0.00a |
101 | 30 | 40.0 ± 0.13b | 21.74 ± 0.15b |
102 | 30 | 73.3 ± 0.23c | 65.22 ± 0.16c |
103 | 30 | 86.7 ± 0.71 | 82.61 ± 0.37 |
104 | 30 | 93.3 ± 0.11 | 91.30 ± 0.21 |
105 | 30 | 96.7 ± 0.42 | 95.65 ± 0.02 |
Table 5.
Resistant of
Means with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05), while, absence of letters means no significantly different (P > 0.05).
Table 6 reveals the resistant of
Parameters (log10cfu/mL) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Initial stock | Survival (%) | Relative protection | |
Control | 30 | 10.0 ± 0.01a | 0.00 ± 0.00a |
101 | 30 | 30.0 ± 0.01b | 22.22 ± 0.03b |
102 | 30 | 36.7 ± 0.15b | 29.63 ± 0.11b |
103 | 30 | 83.3 ± 0.21 | 81.48 ± 0.16 |
104 | 30 | 90.0 ± 0.13 | 88.89 ± 0.80 |
105 | 30 | 93.3 ± 0.04 | 92.59 ± 0.51 |
Table 6.
Resistant of
Means with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05), while, absence of letters means no significantly different (P > 0.05).
4. Discussion
The result of the gut flora revealed that there were reductions in the bacteria load of the prawn fed fortified diets. The decrease in the in observed could be attributed to the activities of
Gut flora have continuous and dynamic effect on the host’s gut and systemic immune systems. The bacteria are key in promoting the early development of the gut’s mucosal immune system both in terms of its physical components and function. The bacteria stimulate the lymphoid tissue associated with the gut mucosa to produce antibodies to pathogens [23]. The immune system recognises and fights harmful bacteria, but leaves the helpful species alone, tolerance developed in juveniles [24]. Recent findings have shown that gut bacteria play a role in the expression of toll-like receptors (TLRs) in the intestines, molecules that help the host repair damage due to injury. The TLRs are one of the two classes of pattern-recognition receptors (PRR) that provide the intestine the ability to discriminate between the pathogenic and commensal bacteria [25]. These PRRs identify the pathogens that have crossed the mucosal barriers and trigger a set of responses that take action against the pathogen [26].
Also, [27] claims that different species of gut flora could influence the development of key cells of the immune system, by increasing or decreasing the level of tolerance against foreign entities. Once the host immune system is developed, it regulates the bacterial composition in the gut. One of the regulation mechanisms—immune exclusion—is mediated through the neutralisation of secreted immunoglobulin A (IgA) [28].
Harmful bacteria species, such as
Immune responses of the prawn fed fortified diets were higher than the control. There higher SOD, CAT RBA, THC, PO, ROI and lysozyme activity in prawn fed the
The investigation into the resistance level of
5. Conclusion
References
- 1.
Adeshina I, Adewale YA, Tiamiyu LO. Growth performance and innate immune response of Clarias gariepinus infected withAeromonas hydrophila fed diets fortified withCurcuma longa leaf. West Africa Journal of Applied Ecology. 2007;25 (2017):79-90 - 2.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Contributing to Food Security and Nutrition for all. Rome Italy: FAO; 2016. p. 24 - 3.
Adedeji OB, Okocha RC. Constraint to aquaculture development in Nigeria and way forward. Journal of Applied Science and Research. 2011; 7 :1133-1140 - 4.
Ajani EK, Akinwole AO, Ayodele IA. Fundamentals of Fish Farming in Nigeria. 1st ed. Vol. 158. Ibadan: Walecrowns Ventures Nigeria; 2011 - 5.
Jami M, Ghanbari M, Zunabovic M, Domig KJ, Kneifel W. Listeria monocytogenes in aquatic food products–A review. Comparative Review of Food Science and Food Safety. 2014;13 :798-813 - 6.
Nayak SK. Probiotics and immunity: A fish perspective. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2010; 29 :2-14 - 7.
Ulukoy G, Metin S, Kubilay A, Guney S, Yilidrim P, Guzel-Seydim Z, Kok-Tas T, Erkan G. The effect of kefir as a dietary supplement on nonspecific immune response and disease resistance in juvenile rainbow trout, oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum 1792). Journal of the World Aquaculture Society. 2017;48 :248-256 - 8.
Munoz-Atienza E, Gomez-Sala B, Araujo C, Campanero C, Del Campo R, Hernandez PE. Antimicrobial activity, antibiotic susceptibility and virulence factor of lactic acid bacteria of aquatic origin intended for use as probiotics in aquaculture. BMC Microbiology. 2013; 24 :13-15 - 9.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of United Nation). Protein Quality Evaluation (Report of Joint FAO/WHO Constitution) Held in Bethside, M.D. USA, DE: Taylor and Franscis; 1990. pp. 10-35 - 10.
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemist). Official Methods of Analysis. 18th ed. Maryland, USA: Association of Official Analytical, Chemists International; 2005 - 11.
Adeshina I, Jenyo-Oni A, Emikpe BO, Ajani EK. Effect of solvents on phytoconstituents and antimicrobial activities of Ocimum gratissimum andEugenia caryophyllata extracts on Listeria monocytogenes. Acta Veterinarian Eurasia. 2018;44 :31-38 - 12.
APHA (American Public Health Association). Standard Methods for the Examination of Bacteria in Water and Wastewater. 16th ed. Washington: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Pollution Control Federation; 1985 - 13.
Ikeh MAC, Obi SKC, Ezeasor DN, Ezeonu IM, Moneke AN. Incidence and pathogenicity profile of Listeria sp. isolated from food and environmental samples in Nsukka. Nigeria. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2010; 9 :4776-4782 - 14.
Abdel-Tawwab M, Abbass FE. Turmeric powder ( Curcuma longa L.) in common carp,Cyprinus carpio L., diets: Growth performance, innate immunity, and challenge against pathogenicAeromonas hydrophila infection. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society. 2017;48 :303-312 - 15.
Aebi H. Catalase in vitro. Methods in Enzymology. 1984; 105 :121-126 - 16.
Chiu CH, Guu YK, Liu CH, Pan TM, Cheng W. Immune responses and gene expression in white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei , induced byLactobacillus plantarum . Fish and Shelfish Immunology. 2007;23 :364-377 - 17.
Secombes CJ. Enhancement of fish phagocyte activity. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 1994; 4 :421-436 - 18.
Anderson DP. Fish Immunology. 2nd ed. Hong Kong: TFH Publications, Inc. Ltd; 1977. p. 150 - 19.
Grinde B, Jolles J, Jolles P. Purification and characterization of two lysozymes from rainbow trout ( Salmo gairdneri ). European Journal of Biochemistry. 1988;173 :269-273 - 20.
Amend DF. Potency testing of fish vaccines. Developments in Biologival Standardization. 1981; 49 :447-429 - 21.
ICMSF (International Commission on the Microbiological Specification of Foods). Sampling for Microbiological Analysis, Principles and Specific Applications of Microorganisms in Food. 2nd ed. Canada: Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1982 - 22.
Addo S, Carrias AA, Williams MA, Liles MR, Terhune JS, Davis DA. Effects of Bacillus subtilis strain on growth, immune parameters, andStreptococcus iniae susceptibility in Nile Tilapia,Orechromis niloticus . Journal of the World Aquaculture Society. 2017;48 :257-267 - 23.
Sears CL. A dynamic partnership: Celebrating our gut flora. Anaerobia. 2005; 11 :247-251 - 24.
Steinhoff U. Who Controls the Crowd? New Findings and Old Questions. 2005; 12 :14-18 - 25.
Kim E, Hong H, Choi K, Han Y, Kangwan N, Cho YC, Hahm KB. High concentrated probiotics improve inflammatory bowel diseases better than commercial concentration of probiotics. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis. 2012; 20 :292-295 - 26.
O’Hara AM, Shanahan F. The gut flora as a forgotten organ. EMBO Reports. 2006; 7 :688-693 - 27.
Jewell AP. Is the liver an important site for the development of immune tolerance to tumours? Medical Hypothesis. 2005; 64 :751-754 - 28.
Mantis NJ, Rol N, Corthésy B. Secretory IgA’s complex roles in immunity and mucosal homeostasis in the gut. Mucous Immunology. 2011; 4 :603-611 - 29.
Segal L, Blaser M. A brave new world: The lung microbiota in an era of change. Annual American Thoracic Society. 2014; 11 :521-527 - 30.
Conterno L, Fava F, Viola R, Tuohy K. Obesity and the gut microbiota: Does up-regulating colonic fermentation protect against obesity and metabolic disease. Genetics and Nutrition. 2011; 3 :241-260 - 31.
Al-Dohail MA, Hashim R, Aliyu-Paiko M. Evaluating the use of Lactobacillus acidophilus as a biocontrol agent against common pathogenic bacteria and the effects on the haematology parameters and histopathology in African catfish (Clarias gariepinus, Burchell 1822) fingerling. Aquaculture Research. 2011;42 :196-209 - 32.
Son VM, Chang CC, Wu MC, Guu YK, Chiu CH, Cheng W. Dietary administration of probiotic, Lactobacillus plantarum, enhanced the growth, innate immune responses and disease resistance of grouperEpinephelus coiodides . Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2009;26 :691-698 - 33.
Faramarzi M, Kiaalvandi S, Lashkarbolooki M, Iranshahi F. The investigation of Lactobacillus acidophilus as probiotics on growth performance and disease resistance of rainbow trout (Oncorhynkius mykiss ). American-European Journal of Science Research. 2011;6 :32-38