Next Article in Journal
Brown and Green Seaweed Antioxidant Properties and Effects on Blood Plasma Antioxidant Enzyme Activities, Hepatic Antioxidant Genes Expression, Blood Plasma Lipid Profile, and Meat Quality in Broiler Chickens
Next Article in Special Issue
Feeding-Regime-Dependent Intestinal Response of Rainbow Trout after Administration of a Novel Probiotic Feed
Previous Article in Journal
Utilizing NUtrack to Access the Activity Levels in Pigs with Varying Degrees of Genetic Potential for Growth and Feed Intake
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Evaluation of Laminarin Additive in the Diets of Juvenile Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides): Growth, Antioxidant Capacity, Immune Response and Intestinal Microbiota
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/ani13101583
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Sustainable Ornamental Fish Aquaculture: The Implication of Microbial Feed Additives

by
Seyed Hossein Hoseinifar
1,*,†,
Francesca Maradonna
2,†,
Mehwish Faheem
3,
Ramasamy Harikrishnan
4,
Gunapathy Devi
5,
Einar Ringø
6,
Hien Van Doan
7,
Ghasem Ashouri
2,
Giorgia Gioacchini
2 and
Oliana Carnevali
2,*
1
Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Fisheries and Environmental Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan 49189-43464, Iran
2
Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, 60131 Ancona, Italy
3
Department of Zoology, Government College University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
4
Department of Zoology, Pachaiyappa’s College for Men, Kanchipuram 631501, Tamil Nadu, India
5
Department of Zoology, Nehru Memorial College, Puthanampatti 621007, Tamil Nadu, India
6
Norwegian College of Fishery Science, Faculty of Bioscience, Fisheries and Economics, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, N9019 Tromsø, Norway
7
Department of Animal and Aquatic Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Animals 2023, 13(10), 1583; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101583
Submission received: 29 March 2023 / Revised: 26 April 2023 / Accepted: 27 April 2023 / Published: 9 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Probiotics and Other Functional Feed Additives in Aquaculture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

In recent decades, trade of ornamental fish has significantly increased. A rise in demand was observed, especially from top importing countries that contributed majorly to the growth of the market. The destructive fishing methods caused a severe impairment of natural and environmental resources. Thus, there is a need to improve ornamental fish aquaculture, increasing the number of cultured species and limiting wild fish handling and transport stress losses. In this light, the use of microbial feed additives such as probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics, could help in improving the immune system and growth as well as increasing reproductive performance in captivity-bred species.

Abstract

Ornamental fish trade represents an important economic sector with an export turnover that reached approximately 5 billion US dollars in 2018. Despite its high economic importance, this sector does not receive much attention. Ornamental fish husbandry still faces many challenges and losses caused by transport stress and handling and outbreak of diseases are still to be improved. This review will provide insights on ornamental fish diseases along with the measures used to avoid or limit their onset. Moreover, this review will discuss the role of different natural and sustainable microbial feed additives, particularly probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on the health, reduction in transport stress, growth, and reproduction of farmed ornamental fish. Most importantly, this review aims to fill the informational gaps existing in advanced and sustainable practices in the ornamental fish production.

1. Introduction

Ornamental fishes, due to their different and brilliant colors, shapes and behavior, are often referred to as living jewels and are kept in aquaria or garden pools for their beauty as well as entertainment. Ornamental fishes thank to their different and brilliant colors, shape and behavior, are often referred as living jewels and are kept in aquaria or garden pools for entertaining and fancy thus resulting, together with photography, among the most important hobbies worldwide. Owning and photography of ornamental fishes are popular hobbies worldwide. There is an increase in people who are more inclined towards purchasing attractive fish species for decorative purposes, citing their alluring features and differing characteristics. This has fueled the exponential growth of the ornamental fish market [1]. Moreover, the latest technological advancements in the industry, such as pet cameras and automatic filters, have further augmented the desire to adopt pets.
Therefore, in recent decades, the global trade of these “pets” has rapidly increased. In a recent review dealing with marine ornamental fish larviculture, Chen et al. [2] stated “each year, it is estimated that more than 20 million marine ornamental fish are collected from the wild and sold to over 2 million aquarium hobbyists world-wide”, which indicates the dire need to expand this industry by increasing the number of new ornamental species [2].
Ornamental fish breeding started in China more than 1000 years ago when goldfish, a freshwater fish, was domesticated. Then, in the 1930s, in Sri Lanka, marine trade started as a result of the export of coral reefs for aquariums [3,4]. However, the fish industry only gained real economic importance from the 1950s onwards. Although the industry has expanded considerably, the production of fish declined in the late 1990s.
Nowadays, more than 7000 aquatic species are reared and marketed as ornamental fish. Of them, approximately 5000 are freshwater- and 1800 are marine species [2,5,6,7]. In contrast to marine ones, the majority of freshwater specimens are produced in captivity [8]. More than 120 countries are involved in the ornamental fish industry, in their import/export, led by Asian and developing countries, which produce approximately 60% of ornamental fish [9], with a global trade worth approximately of USD 15–30 billion each year [4,9].
Very recently, some comprehensive reviews on ornamental fish culture have been published [2,7,10], detailing the global interest in ornamental fish. To meet this increasing demand, the introduction of innovative and sustainable rearing practices could represent an improvement in the aquaculture sector, reducing the depletion of natural resources in many developing countries.
Unfortunately, none of these review articles deepened the understanding of the role of microbial feed additives on growth performance, immune response, fecundity, stress resistance and improvement of water quality, in ornamental fish farming. Thus, the present review will collect all the available knowledge regarding these lesser-known aspects of fundamental importance to realize a sustainable ornamental fish aquaculture.

2. Economic Aspects of Ornamental Fish Trade

The ornamental fish market was valued at USD 5.4 billion in 2021 and is anticipated to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.5% from 2022 to 2030. The tropical freshwater fish segment dominates the market and accounted for the largest revenue share of 51.7% in 2021. Among most popular tropical freshwater fish for beginners are guppy (Poecilia reticulata), molly (Poecilia sphenops), and zebrafish (Danio rerio); most of them are quite inexpensive and usually priced between USD 1 and 6. Nearly 15% of the total traded fish consists of marine ornamental species, with their attractive colors and attention-grabbing behavior [11], largely derived from wild catches [12].
Approximately 99% of the market is kept by hobbyists and less than 1% by public aquaria and research institutes. It has been estimated that more than 1.5 million people are involved in this sector and there are over 3.5 million hobbyists worldwide involved in this trade. The sector has provided employment opportunities, alleviated poverty, and contributed to national income by enhancing foreign exchange earnings [13].
World exports of ornamental fish increased steadily from USD 177.7 million to a peak of USD 364.9 million in 2011, before declining slightly to USD 347.5 million in 2014 [14].
In 2014, Asian countries accounted for more than 50% of the trade, and export was valued at USD 130 million. Europe accounted for 27.6% of the total market (valued at USD 95.8 million) followed by South America (7.5%), North America (3.98%), Africa (2.2%), Oceania (1.4%) and the Middle East (0.5%) (Figure 1). Singapore was the top ornamental fish exporter (20% of the total) and the turnover was valued at USD 69.32 million [14] (Figure 2). Japan was the leader in koi carp production, thus the second most important exporting country (USD 41.34 million). Starting from 2000, for many years, the USA had the world’s largest ornamental fish market, but imports declined from USD 60 million in 2000 to USD 42.9 million in 2014 [14]. In Europe, the UK remains the largest importer of ornamental fish (USD 29.5 million) [15].

3. Effects of Microbial Feed Additives on Ornamental Fish Health

Disease outbreak is the major problem in ornamental fish production, causing a substantial economic loss of approximately 400 million US dollars [16]. Diseases can be either of parasitic, bacterial, viral or fungal origins and common symptoms include dropsy, ulcers, fin and tail rot, constipation, swim bladder inflammation, clamped fins, pop eyes, flip over disease, skin flukes, and cloudy eye. The resulting losses negatively affect the financial and socioeconomic status of the ornamental fish farming community. Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 list the most common parasitic, bacterial, viral, and fungal diseases identified so far.
Commercial aquaculture practices commonly used to prevent or heal damage in fish intended for human consumption, can represent a good starting point to reduce losses The aquaculture industry still represent a major area of antibiotic misuse [17] and so far, oxytetracycline hydrochloride and kanamycin have positively resolved a wide spectrum of fish bacterial diseases, including furunculosis, aeromonosis, pseudomonosis, lactococcosis, and vibriosis, being administered via feed, bath treatment or injection [18]. Excessive and unregulated use of antibiotics in aquaculture, as well as in the ornamental fish industry, has led to the development of gut antibiotic-resistant bacteria [19] and antimicrobial-resistant pathogens [20], subsequently affecting the immune system of fish.
Starting from the regulation of antibiotic use, researchers are now focused on considering and discussing valid alternatives and promising functional feed additives (vaccination, bacteriophages, quorum quenching, probiotics and prebiotics, chicken egg yolk antibody and medicinal plant derivative) that could also be successfully applied in ornamental fish culture [21].
Lilly and Stillwell [22] first proposed the term probiotics “to be used for substances that favors the growth of microorganisms”. Since then, several definitions have been proposed and the most common is “live microorganisms that when administrated in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit to the host”. proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO). Kozasa [23] was the first researcher who used probiotics in aquaculture and the very first review article on probiotics was published in 1998 [24]; since then, several reviews have been published [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Live bacteria as well as inactivated bacteria and spore formers have been used as probiotics in aquaculture [34]. Among microbial fish additives, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and Bacillus probiotics are the most used; however, Aeromonas, Alteromonas, Arthrobacter, Bifidobacterium, Clostridium, Paenibacillus, Phaeobacter, Pseudoalteromonas, Pseudomonas, Rhodosporidium, Roseobacter, Streptomyces, Vibrio, microalgae (Tetraselmis), and yeast (Debaryomyces, Phaffia, and Saccharomyces) are also beneficial [33]. Probiotics can be administered via feed supplementation (single or in mixture) or dissolved in water.
Starting from the beginning of the 1980s, probiotics were used in aquaculture practices aiming at controlling bacterial infections and improving water quality. In teleost species, increasing evidence confirmed that probiotics can increase lipid and glucose levels [35,36,37], bone metabolism [38], microbiome composition [39], stress tolerance [40,41], and reproductive performance [26,42,43,44,45]. Nowadays, several commercial probiotics containing Bacillus sp., Lactobacillus sp., Enterococcus sp., Carnobacterium sp., and yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae are used with strict safety measurements and careful management recommendations, which guarantee beneficial effects on production and health [46].
Table 5 represents the possible effects of microbial feed additive on ornamental fish health, welfare and reproduction.
LAB, a variety of Gram-positive bacteria, are the main microorganisms that ferment plants, vegetables, meats, fish, and dairy products in the intestine [83,84]. LAB are also commonly used to produce various compounds, such as small organic acids, vitamins, and biological peptides [85,86,87]. Within LAB, L. acidophilus is among the most industrially utilized strain in the manufacture of dairy products and dietary supplements [88,89]. Given that LAB may supply several organic molecules via various metabolic processes, these microbes could be utilized as valuable and specific sources of a wide range of enzymes with novel properties [90,91].
Production of Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens) represents a great example of good practice using LAB. This species provides a great income among exported ornamental fish in Thailand. A study reported that a diet supplemented with L. plantarum (KKU CRIT5) exerted no significant improvement of digestive enzymes compared to control, with decreased protein depositions in body and muscle, suggesting that additional trials could be set up in this species in order to verify the effects of this probiotic focusing on dose and time of administration [47]. In Xiphophorus helleri, a dietary supplementation of L. acidophilus positively modulated mucosal immune parameters, e.g., skin mucus protein and alkaline phosphatase levels. In addition, the response to salinity stress was improved, clearly indicating a better healthy condition of the fish, as also supported by the modulation of intestinal microbiota towards beneficial LAB [48]. Surprisingly, in the same species, the administration of a commercial probiotic formulation containing two Lactobacillus species, two Bacillus species, Streptococcus faecium, and S. cereviasiae did not confer better tolerance against bacterial challenges [49]. Similar results were observed in goldfish, Carassius auratus, where the administration of the same commercial probiotic or a mixture of Lactobacillus sp. and Bacillus sp. had no significant effect on resistance against Pseudomonas fluorescens infection [49]. Additionally, a study on goldfish reported that when a 40% protein diet was supplemented with different concentrations of three commercial Lactobacillus probiotic-based formulations, an increase in protein and a decrease in fat content were observed. This suggested that these probiotics could improve the nutritional properties of the fillet [54], which is an important factor, especially for species intended for human consumption. Porthole livebearer (Poecilopsis gracilis), when fed with Artemia nauplii enriched with L. casei, showed increased production of skin mucus and a faster recovery after the air-dive/stress test, suggesting that this probiotic could be helpful in obtaining healthier organism for the ornamental fish market [56].
B. coagulans and B. mesentericus, used to enrich Thermocyclops decipiens cultures and administered via diet to Puntius conchonius post larvae, significantly changed gut microflora composition. Microbiota analysis further revealed that B. coagulans poorly adheres to the gut with respect to B. mesentericus [57].
The commercial mixture containing B. subtilis, B. licheniformes, L. acidophilus, and S. cerevisiae was beneficial in fish facing extreme conditions including handling and transport stress. Based on these results, these probiotic strains have been largely used in the trade of Cardinal tetra, Paracheirodon axelrodi [75] and the marbled hatchet fish, Carnegiella strigata [74], which showed a decrease in stress levels and related metabolite secretion. In these trials, a sensible improvement of water quality was also described.
Probiotics (Bacillus sp., Lactobacillus sp., and their mixtures) were used in the giant gourami, Osphronemus goramy, to produce higher-quality fish and to reduce the risk of diseases outbreak. Fish exposed to a mixture of Bacillus sp. and Lactobacillus sp. via water presented a higher survival rate. These species also improved the quality of the rearing water [58].
L. fermentum (KT183369) and B. subtilis sp. inaquasporium (KR816099) isolated from coconut were used in a feeding trial with the black molly, Poecilia sphenops. At the end, their adhesive properties towards the host cells were found, which led to the speculation that both strains could be used against Vibrio parahaemolyticus. The ability to fight V. parahaemolyticus was demonstrated by a challenge test. In addition, L. fermentum displayed a higher capacity to colonize the gut, suggesting that could be an excellent feed additive for ornamental aquaculture species [59,60]. An additional challenge test against V. anguillarum was set up using B. pumilus RI06-95Sm and results showed its ability to colonize the molly’s gut, reverse the negative impacts of antibiotic treatment and decrease the mortality rate [61].
Three different probiotic strains—L. rhamnosus, B. coagulans, and B. mesentericus—were administered separately to zebrafish, D. rerio, through enrichment of artemia and compared with control fish fed with unenriched artemia. The positive effect of probiotic administration was demonstrated by the decrease of the number of gut pathogenic bacteria in all experimental groups compared to control fish. One week after the end of the trial, gut microbiota was significantly colonized by L. rhamnosus, suggesting artemia as an effective means for probiotic delivery [62]. L. rhamnosus administration via water to zebrafish larvae significantly accelerated skeletogenesis acting on lipid and vitamin D metabolism [63] and positively modulated the expression of genes responsible for bone formation [38]. A positive modulation of signal involved in lipid and vitamin D metabolism was also observed in clownfish, Amphiprion ocellaris [71]. Positive outcomes were also observed using caudal fin regeneration as a process to investigate the effects of a mix of B. subtilis, B. licheniformis, B. coagulans, and L. acidophilus plus the yeast S. cerevisiae. In this study, evidence regarding the treatmentability to promote osteoblast differentiation, suppress osteoclast activity and modulate phosphate homeostasis was provided, strongly promoting its use to support bone homeostasis and reduce deformity [92].
Zebrafish also resulted an excellent experimental model to demonstrate the positive role of L. rhamnosus IMC 501 on fish welfare: an increase of genes involved in immunity was recorded in intestinal tissue, while in the liver, a downregulation of stress and apoptotic-related biomarkers was documented, suggesting that administration of probiotics could help against pathogens [40]. In zebrafish, B. amyloliquefaciens R8 administration induced a significant increase of gut xylanase activity in respect to fish fed a control diet. At the hepatic level, mRNA expression of glycolysis-related and anti-apoptotic genes was regulated; this occurred concomitantly to an increase of 3-hydroxyacyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase and citrate synthase enzyme activities, responsible for fatty acid β-oxidation and mitochondrial integrity [64]. In addition, treating zebrafish with probiotics significantly increased disease resistance against A. hydrophila and S. agalactiae. This evidence strongly supports the idea that the administration of xylanase-expressing B. amyloliquefaciens R8 can improve stress response, increasing immunity and disease resistance against pathogen challenges [64]. In X. hellerii, diet supplementation with B. subtilis significantly improved growth by increasing feed assimilation and improving metabolism [52]. Inclusion of B. subtilis in P. latipinna diet, significantly improved growth and disease resistance against A. hydrophila, and led to a higher survival rate than in control or antibiotic-treated groups [72]. The administration of a commercial probiotic, containing B. subtilis and B. licheniformis to goldfish, C. auratus, significantly improved the survival rate, food digestibility, stress resistance, and immune response [55]. These two probiotic strains enhanced immune parameters, increased total protein, albumin, total globulin, lysozyme and hemolytic complement activity levels compared to control when sprayed on a dry diet and administered to tinfoil barb, Barbonymus schwanenfeldii. In addition, the increase in peroxidase and trypsin levels suggested a possible activation of leucocyte phagocyte activity as well as an increased resistance to pathogens and strongly advises their use against bacterial challenges [73]. The probiotic strain P. acidilactici was co-administered with fish oil to green terror, A. rivulatus, and the effects on the innate immune parameters were measured. Compared to a control diet, the experimental fish displayed a significant increase in non-specific immune system biomarkers, suggesting the positive effects of this probiotic administration [76]. A preliminary study on P. scalare also revealed that E.faecium could be used to improve the viability of this species [78]. Dietary administration of E. cloacae with a 2% mannan oligosaccharide (MOS), significantly increased blood cell counts and respiratory activity in the Kenyi cichlid, Maylandia lombardoi, against Plesiomonas shigelloides, suggesting the use of this probiotic strain to prevent this infection in ornamental fish aquaculture [79].
When adult zebrafish were fed a diet supplemented with C. aquaticum, a “potential-candidate” probiotic isolated from lake water samples, a set of protease and xylanase and a bacteriocin-like substance, able to counteract the negative effects of diverse pathogens, including aquatic, foodborne and plant pathogens, were produced. In fish receiving the probiotic, carbohydrate and immune-related gene expression were upregulated. Additionally, dietary probiotics increased disease resistance against A. hydrophila and S. iniae. These results clearly showed that C. aquaticum, as a probiotic, not only improved nutrient metabolism but also increased innate immune parameters as well as resistance against pathogens [66]. In the same fish species, administration of Actinobacteria phylum, B. infantis and B. longum decreased the number of gut pathogenic species. Despite this positive evidence, one week after the end of the trial, gut microflora was not significantly colonized by these two species, suggesting that these probiotics should be administered longer or should be supplied with other beneficial species for a more stable result [62]. The administration of a commercial probiotic mixture composed of S. thermophilus DSM 24731, B. longum DSM 24736, B. breve DSM 24732, B. infantis DSM 24737, L. acidophilus DSM 24735, L. plantarum DSM 24730, L. paracasei DSM 24733, and L. delbrueckii sp. bulgaricus DSM 24734 potentiates immune cell function, by inducing gene expression of Toll-like receptors (TLR) and other immune factors [65]. A decrease in the number of apoptotic cells was observed in the gut, suggesting the capacity of these bacteria to control immune response and inflammation [65]. In the black molly, P. sphenops, when challenged with V. anguillarum, the proteobacteria probiotic strain Phaeobacter inhibens S4Sm colonized the gut, causing changes in the fish microbiome able to contrast the negative impact of antibiotic treatment, suggesting that its use in aquaculture could protect fish from external pathogens [61].
The administration of Thermocyclops decipiens enriched with B. infantis significantly changed gut microflora composition in P. conchonius post-larvae [57]. Dietary protein supplement with a multispecies bacteria formulation made of several probiotic strains B. bacterium, S. silivarius, E. faecium, A. oryzae, and Candida pintolopesii exerted positive effects on hematological factors of the Oscar, A. ocellatus fingerlings, suggesting positive outcomes against pathogens in both commercial and ornamental fish trade and opens new possibility for further research [80].
Bacteria can also be used as a source of proteins. In a trial with X. hellerii, a set of artificial diets were prepared by substituting fish meal with different proportions of microbial single-cell proteins (SCPs) extracted from the gut. SCPs could be bacterial cells, either Micrococcus or Bacillus, Azobacter or Streptomyces-a- and -b-enriched diets, that induced a significant improvement of food conversion efficiency and conversion rate and a higher protein content in X. hellerii, thus representing a promising area of research [50]. Results presented are summarized in Table 5.
So far, several yeast species have been used in ornamental fish culture and the positive effects of their use have been demonstrated. Molly, P. latipinna, fed on artemia enriched with S. cerevisiae cell wall, showed an improvement of reproduction, stress response, and resistance against A. hydrophila [81]. Similarly, a feeding trial was carried out to study the effects of S. cerevisiae in juvenile A. percula and the results showed that the treatment increased hematological and serum values (markers of the non-specific immune parameters) improving defense against Streptococcus sp. [82]. Diet supplementation with RNA extracted from Kluyveromyces fragilis significantly modulated the stress response during zebrafish early larval development, suggesting an anti-inflammatory action of RNA yeast extract [69]. Two non-Saccharomyces species, Yarrowia lipolytica 242 (Yl242) and Debaryomyces hansenii 97 (Dh97), significantly improved the immune system of zebrafish larvae and defense against V. anguillarum when administered with the diet. Treated fish showed a downregulation of immune-related genes (IL-1β, TNF-α, IL-10, C3, MPx), suggesting that this yeast could be used against pathogens [70]. Since a healthier status was already described in several aquaculture species including catfish, Clarias gariepinus [93], salmon, Salmo salar, [94], and trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss [95], the results strongly suggest the use of yeast also in ornamental aquaculture.

4. Effects of Microbial Feed Additives on Ornamental Fish Growth

The main target of aquaculture practice is to acquire the most rapid growth and the lowest production cost. To achieve this goal, several means have been established to boost the growth rate and feed consumption by adding functional feed additives [96,97]. Probiotics are among those functional feed additives showing strong effects on growth, health, and well-being. In aquaculture, investigations on probiotic-containing diets demonstrated the role of these favorable bacteria in improving gut microflora balance and in the production of extracellular enzymes able to enhance feed utilization and increase growth performance [98,99]. Probiotics can increase the uptake of nutrients, the assimilation capacity, the feed conversion ratio and improve digestibility [99,100,101]. In addition, probiotics have been proven to promote the absorption of feed through the production of extracellular digestive enzymes, i.e., amylases, proteases and lipases or intestinal alterations, resulting in a better growth [25,102,103,104,105].
Ahmadifard et al. [72] indicated that dietary inclusion of B. subtilis in diets of P. latipinna significantly improved growth and reproductive performance. It has been further reported that probiotics colonized in the gastrointestinal tract could stimulate broodstock and larvae nutrition by synthesizing the necessary nutrients and enzymes, such as proteins, vital fatty acids, and amylase, as well as protease and lipase [106]. In addition, probiotics in fish gut promoted enzyme excretion in the host by inducing maturation of the gut secretory cells [99,101]. These enzymes improved the digestion efficiency of complicated proteins and lipids included in the diet that can per se affect the assimilation rate. Similarly, He et al. [107] disclosed that the inclusion of B. subtilis in the diet significantly improved Koi carp, C. carpio, weight gain and feed conversion ratio. However, dietary probiotics had no effect on fish body skin coloration.
The supplementation of Lactobacillus in black swordtail, X. hellerii, resulted in the promotion of growth and survival rates [48]. Significantly improved growth performance can be due to increased digestive enzymes and appetite, vitamin production, degradation of undigested elements and potential enhancement in intestinal morphology [108] (Table 6). However, dietary administration of L. acidophilus did not have any significant effect in goldfish, C. auratus gibelio, growth performance and feed utilization [109]. The inconsistent nature of these findings can be attributable to a species-specificity, stage of life, dosage, and trial condition and suggests the need for different probiotics to be assessed on desired species [110]. P. acidilactici has also been used in green terror, A. rivulatus [76], Oscar, A. ocellatus [111], and convict cichlid, Amatitlania nigrofasciata [112]. The results suggested that its dietary administration significantly improved growth efficiency and survival rate. Dietary incorporation of two Bacillus probiotics (B. subtilis and B. licheniformis) significantly increased growth performance and feed utilization in goldfish, C. auratus [55]. Bacillus sp. are dominant in the gastrointestinal tract of fish and shellfish [105], which are able to produce several amino acids [28] and vitamins (K and B12) [113] to boost the host’s growth performance. Similarly, the combination of L. plantarum, L. delbrueckii, L. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus, B. bifidum, S. silivarius, E. faecium, A. oryzae, and C. pintolopesii significantly improved the growth rate, but decreased food conversion rate (FCR) in Oscar, A. ocellatus [80]. Dhanaraj et al. [114] found that dietary administration of L. acidophilus and S. cervisiae showed a higher growth rate and FCR in koi carp, C. carpio, compared to the control. In addition, β-glucan, found in the yeast cell wall, was capable of improving immunity, growth performance, and resistance against pathogens [115]. It is likely that dietary Lactobacillus sp., Azotobacter sp., Clostridia, sp., Enterbacter sp., Agrobacterium sp., Erwinia sp., and Pseudomonas sp. significantly improved goldfish growth performance [116]. This mixture could increase the fermentation rate of feeds in fish intestine, and increase the absorption rate of nutrition in the digestive system [33]. In contrast, Abraham and collaborators [49] indicated that dietary inclusion of L. sporogenes, L. acidophilus, B. subtilis, B. licheniformis, S. faecium, and S. cerevisiae displayed no effect on the growth performance and feed utilization of C. auratus and X. hellerii. Similarly, dietary inclusion of B. licheniformis, B. latrospore, and S. cerevisiae did not make a difference in weight gain, the specific growth rate, and the feed conversion ratio in guppy, P. reticulata [117].

5. Effects of Microbial Feed Additives on Ornamental Fish Reproduction

The beneficial effect of probiotics in reproduction was demonstrated, thanks to their ability to produce vitamin B and certain unknown stimulants [118], which in turn could play a vital role in increasing the reproduction rate of the host [126]. One example is represented by B. subtilis, which is able to synthesize vitamins B1 and B12, responsible for the reduction of the number of abnormal and dead larvae [51]. The effects of one year of B. subtilis dietary supplementation were evaluated in five ornamental fish species—Cirrhinus mrigala, P. reticulata, P. sphenops, X. helleri and X. maculatus—and the results obtained highlighted better reproductive performances, as witnessed by the increase in the gonadosomatic index (GSI), fecundity and fertility rate in all species analyzed. In addition, fries presented higher survival rates as well as decreases of deformities [52]. Similarly, an Artemia diet enriched with B. subtilis significantly improved the reproductive performance of P. latipinna, in terms of fry production and survival [72]. The administration of L. rhamnosus strongly improved zebrafish reproductive performance, acting on both fertility and fecundity [26,42]. Probiotics acted at the gonadal level by inducing follicle maturation [43,67]. A similar effect of L. rhamnosus was also evidenced in killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus) [127].
The positive effects of probiotics on male reproductive performance were first described in zebrafish by Valcarce, et al. [128], who reported an improvement of sperm quality and reproductive behavior in fish treated with L. rhamnosus and B. longum [128]. In this last model, similar results were reported by other authors, using two different Lactobacillus strains, L. rhamnosus CIC 6141 and L. casei BL23 [68]. Dietary administration of P. acidilactici (0.2%) and nucleotide (0.5%) positively affected sperm quality, motility and density in goldfish, C. auratus [129].
A novel aspect in this field is represented by the ability of probiotics to contrast endocrine disruptor reproductive toxicity, as observed in zebrafish exposed to bisphenol A. Probiotic co-administration, indeed, mitigates bisphenol A reproductive toxicity in zebrafish [130].
These results are summarized in Table 5.

6. Role of Microbial Feed Additives in Maintaining Good Water Quality of Ornamental Fish Holding Systems

Administration of probiotics in culture water can offer an advantage at any point in the species life cycle. This is of high importance, especially during larval stages, when their use can improve health conditions [131]. Probiotics in water can proliferate using available substrates and competitively exclude the pathogenic bacteria [132].
It has been suggested that water probiotics (B. acidophilus, B. Subtilis, B. licheniformis, Nitrobacter sp., Aerobacter sp., and S. cerevisiae) beneficially affect water quality through enhancing organic matter decomposition of the undesirable organic substances [133], increasing the population of food organisms, reducing pathogenic bacteria [134] and nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and controlling ammonia, nitrite, hydrogen methane, etc., levels [135,136,137,138]. Considering that fish feed and waste are two significant parameters of the aquaculture ecological footprint, it can be argued that probiotics can contribute to reduce the environmental impact of aquaculture [139].

7. Current Knowledge Regarding Prebiotic and Synbiotic Use in Ornamental Fish

Prebiotics, as promising immunostimulants, have been introduced to aquaculture as a preventive action [140]. They mainly consist of oligosaccharides such as fructooligosaccharide (FOS), galactooligosaccharide (GOS), mannan-oligosaccharide (MOS), and xylooligosaccharide (XOS), which have been proven to promote beneficial bacterial growth within the gastrointestinal tract [141,142]. Many prebiotic compounds such as FOS, GOS, MOS, inulin or β -glucan have been used in the ornamental fish culture industry (Table 7) and extensively employed as immunostimulants to improve growth performance, modulate microbial activities of the digestive tract, stimulate the immune system and enhance stress resistance. In the literature, data about the effect of prebiotic administration on growth performance in ornamental fish are reported. GOS administration was effective in gibel carp, C. auratus gibelio [110], and zebrafish, D. rerio [143]. MOS administration did not affect Siamese fighting fish, B. splendens [144], and clownfish, A. ocellaris [145] survival and growth, but positively acted on zebrafish, D. rerio. [146] and regal peacock cichlid, A. stuartgranti [147]. Focusing on XOS, it was effective on Oscar, A. ocellatus [148], and crucian carp, C. auratus gibelio [149] (Table 7 and Table 8).
The prebiotic type, dose, duration of treatment as well as host gut microbiota are the main reasons for observing contradictory results.
Dietary supplementation of prebiotic such as β-glucan [140] in koi, C. carpio koi, and ferula, [153] in zebrafish, GOS in goldfish, C. auratus gibelo [110], and zebrafish, D. rerio [143] increased humoral (alkaline phosphatase, lysozyme, immunoglobulin, alternative complement, and superoxide dismutase activity) and cellular (phagocytic capacity and respiratory burst activity) immune responses. Iger and Abraham [161] reported that alkaline phosphatase possesses antibacterial properties due to hydrolytic activity and its increase suggested an improved immune response.
Nutritional supplements combining probiotics and prebiotics in the form of synergism is known as symbiotic, resulting in a more beneficial effect when compared with individual administration [162]. In a trial, angelfish, P. scalare, were fed with three different diets—a control diet, a diet enriched with P. acidilactici, and a diet enriched with P. acidilactici and fructooligosaccharide (FOS)—and were then exposed to environmental stress (temperature and salinity stress). Results demonstrated that fish fed P. acidilactici and FOS presented higher levels of lysozyme activity, immunoglobulin, and protease measured in skin mucus, in respect to P. acidilactici alone, suggesting the beneficial and synergic role of FOS to potentiate the probiotic effects [77].
In addition, in koi, C. carpio koi, under dietary COS combined with B. coagulans [140], or in rockfish, Sebastes schlegeli, under dietary GOS combined with P. acidilactici [163] or in Japanese flounder, P. olivaceus, dietary MOS combined with B. clausii [160], a significant improvement of growth performance and immune response was observed. Since synbiotic treatment has been suggested as a suitable alternative technique for pathogen prevention, their effectiveness in terms of defense against infectious diseases could be evaluated by a challenge test. Challenge tests using A. veronii and Edwardsiella tarda as pathogens were conducted in koi, C. carpio koi [140], and rockfish, Sebastes schlegeli [163], following a dietary synbiotic administration.Post-challenge mortality of fish was significantly higher in the control group than in the synbiotic group, which showed COS + B. coagulans and GOS + P. acidilactici to have a synergistic effect (Table 8).

8. Research Gaps and Future Perspectives

The use of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics offers viable alternatives for a new generation of a higher-quality live products in terms of size, health, safety, and production time. Several studies on probiotics suggested the many advantages and benefits of their use in terms of growth performance, water quality and immune system. Despite the extensive research attempts to increase disease resistance of cultured fish by using dietary probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics, a limited number of studies were so far conducted on ornamental fish. In the near future, the application of prebiotics and synbiotics will be pivotalfor the development of a sustainable ornamental fish production. However, there is still a need to understand the mechanisms of action of pre-, pro- and synbiotics on both gastrointestinal health and animal welfare. Further studies must be undertaken to determine the composition of microbial communities and their administration as live feed additives. They are, indeed, temperature sensitive and can be killed by the high temperature during pelleting procedures, thus great efforts have been made to fill this gap, resulting their microencapsulation, freezing and inclusion in protective matrices, promising strategies to increase microbe viability and survival in feed [164]. Additionally, detailed investigations about the time, type, frequency and dose of live feed additive application must be conducted. Considering the promising immunomodulatory effects of these functional feed additives, their application can also be taken into account in ornamental fish larviculture.

Author Contributions

S.H.H., writing—review and editing. F.M., writing original draft preparation—review and editing. M.F., writing—original draft preparation. R.H., writing—original draft preparation. G.D. writing—original draft preparation. E.R., writing—original draft preparation. H.V.D., writing—original draft preparation. G.A., writing—original draft preparation. G.G., writing—review and editing. O.C., writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request due to restrictions, e.g., privacy or ethical. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kumar, T.A.; Gunasundari, V.; Prakash, S. Breeding and rearing of marine ornamentals. In Advances in Marine and Brackishwater Aquaculture; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 101–107. [Google Scholar]
  2. Chen, J.Y.; Zeng, C.; Jerry, D.R.; Cobcroft, J.M. Recent advances of marine ornamental fish larviculture: Broodstock reproduction, live prey and feeding regimes, and comparison between demersal and pelagic spawners. Rev. Aquac. 2020, 12, 1518–1541. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wood, E.M. Exploitation of Coral Reef Fishes for the Aquarium Trade: A Report to the Marine Conservation Society; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1985; p. 121. [Google Scholar]
  4. Biondo, M.V.; Burki, R.P. Monitoring the trade in marine ornamental fishes through the European Trade Control and Expert System TRACES: Challenges and possibilities. Mar. Policy 2019, 108, 103620. [Google Scholar]
  5. Raghavan, R.; Dahanukar, N.; Tlusty, M.F.; Rhyne, A.L.; Kumar, K.K.; Molur, S.; Rosser, A.M. Uncovering an obscure trade: Threatened freshwater fishes and the aquarium pet markets. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 164, 158–169. [Google Scholar]
  6. Prakash, S.; Kumar, T.T.A.; Raghavan, R.; Rhyne, A.; Tlusty, M.F.; Subramoniam, T. Marine aquarium trade in India: Challenges and opportunities for conservation and policy. Mar. Policy 2017, 77, 120–129. [Google Scholar]
  7. Novák, J.; Kalous, L.; Patoka, J. Modern ornamental aquaculture in Europe: Early history of freshwater fish imports. Rev. Aquac. 2020, 12, 2042–2060. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tlusty, M. The benefits and risks of aquacultural production for the aquarium trade. Aquaculture 2002, 205, 203–219. [Google Scholar]
  9. Evers, H.G.; Pinnegar, J.K.; Taylor, M.I. Where are they all from?–sources and sustainability in the ornamental freshwater fish trade. J. Fish Biol. 2019, 94, 909–916. [Google Scholar]
  10. Vanderzwalmen, M.; Eaton, L.; Mullen, C.; Henriquez, F.; Carey, P.; Snellgrove, D.; Sloman, K.A. The use of feed and water additives for live fish transport. Rev. Aquac. 2019, 11, 263–278. [Google Scholar]
  11. Raja, S.; Babu, T.; Nammalwar, P.; Jacob, C.; Dinesh, K. Potential of ornamental fish culture and marketing strategies for future prospects in India. Int. J. Biosci. Nanosci. 2014, 1, 119–125. [Google Scholar]
  12. Satam, S.; Sawant, N.; Ghughuskar, M.; Sahastrabuddhe, V.; Naik, V.; Pagarkar, A.; Chogale, N.; Metar, S.; Shinde, K.; Sadawarte, V. Ornamental fisheries: A new avenue to supplement farm income. Adv. Agric. Res. Technol. J. 2018, 2, 193–197. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dey, V. Ornamental Fish Trade–Recent Trends in Asia. In Souvenir, Ornamental; Department of Fisheries, Government of Kerala: Kerala, India, 2010; pp. 39–45. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dey, V. The global trade in ornamental fish. Infofish Int. 2016, 4, 23–29. [Google Scholar]
  15. Pinnegar, J.K.; Murray, J.M. Understanding the United Kingdom marine aquarium trade–a mystery shopper study of species on sale. J. Fish Biol. 2019, 94, 917–924. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Evan, Y.; Putri, N.E. Status of aquatic animal health in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Promotion of Sustainable Aquaculture, Aquatic Animal Health, and Resource Enhancement in Southeast Asia, Iloilo, Philippines, 25–27 June 2019; pp. 138–149. [Google Scholar]
  17. Shao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Xie, Y. A systematic review on antibiotics misuse in livestock and aquaculture and regulation implications in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 798, 149205. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  18. Lu, T.H.; Chen, C.Y.; Wang, W.M.; Liao, C.M. A risk-based approach for managing aquaculture used oxytetracycline-induced TetR in surface water across Taiwan regions. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 803499. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rose, S.; Hill, R.; Bermudez, L.; Miller-Morgan, T. Imported ornamental fish are colonized with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. J. Fish Dis. 2013, 36, 533–542. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  20. Preena, P.; Arathi, D.; Raj, N.S.; Arun Kumar, T.; Arun Raja, S.; Reshma, R.; Raja Swaminathan, T. Diversity of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens from a freshwater ornamental fish farm. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 71, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bondad-Reantaso, M.G.; MacKinnon, B.; Karunasagar, I.; Fridman, S.; Alday-Sanz, V.; Brun, E.; Le Groumellec, M.; Li, A.; Surachetpong, W.; Karunasagar, I. Review of alternatives to antibiotic use in aquaculture. Rev. Aquac. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lilly, D.M.; Stillwell, R.H. Probiotics: Growth-promoting factors produced by microorganisms. Science 1965, 147, 747–748. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kozasa, M. Toyocerin (Bacillus toyoi) as growth promotor for animal feeding. Microbiol. Aliment. Nutr. 1986, 4, 121–135. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ringø, E.; Gatesoupe, F.J. Lactic acid bacteria in fish: A review. Aquaculture 1998, 160, 177–203. [Google Scholar]
  25. Merrifield, D.L.; Dimitroglou, A.; Foey, A.; Davies, S.J.; Baker, R.T.M.; Bøgwald, J.; Castex, M.; Ringø, E. The current status and future focus of probiotic and prebiotic applications for salmonids. Aquaculture 2010, 302, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  26. Carnevali, O.; Avella, M.; Gioacchini, G. Effects of probiotic administration on zebrafish development and reproduction. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 2013, 188, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Hoseinifar, S.H.; Sun, Y.; Wang, A.; Zhou, Z. Probiotics as means of diseases control in aquaculture, A Review of current knowledge and future perspectives. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2429. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  28. Soltani, M.; Ghosh, K.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Kumar, V.; Lymbery, A.J.; Roy, S.; Ringø, E. Genus bacillus, promising probiotics in aquaculture: Aquatic animal origin, bio-active components, bioremediation and efficacy in fish and shellfish. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2019, 27, 331–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ringø, E.; Harikrishnan, R.; Soltani, M.; Ghosh, K. The Effect of Gut Microbiota and Probiotics on Metabolism in Fish and Shrimp. Animals 2022, 12, 3016. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Hoseinifar, S.H.; Ringø, E.; Shenavar Masouleh, A.; Esteban, M.Á. Probiotic, prebiotic and synbiotic supplements in sturgeon aquaculture: A review. Rev. Aquac. 2016, 8, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Carnevali, O.; Maradonna, F.; Gioacchini, G. Integrated control of fish metabolism, wellbeing and reproduction: The role of probiotic. Aquaculture 2017, 472, 144–155. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hong, H.A.; Duc, L.H.; Cutting, S.M. The use of bacterial spore formers as probiotics. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2005, 29, 813–835. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ringø, E. Probiotics in shellfish aquaculture. Aquac. Fish. 2020, 5, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  34. Chauhan, A.; Singh, R. Probiotics in aquaculture: A promising emerging alternative approach. Symbiosis 2019, 77, 99–113. [Google Scholar]
  35. Falcinelli, S.; Picchietti, S.; Rodiles, A.; Cossignani, L.; Merrifield, D.L.; Taddei, A.R.; Maradonna, F.; Olivotto, I.; Gioacchini, G.; Carnevali, O. Lactobacillus rhamnosus lowers zebrafish lipid content by changing gut microbiota and host transcription of genes involved in lipid metabolism. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 9336. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Falcinelli, S.; Rodiles, A.; Hatef, A.; Picchietti, S.; Cossignani, L.; Merrifield, D.L.; Unniappan, S.; Carnevali, O. Dietary lipid content reorganizes gut microbiota and probiotic L. rhamnosus attenuates obesity and enhances catabolic hormonal milieu in zebrafish. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5512. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Falcinelli, S.; Rodiles, A.; Unniappan, S.; Picchietti, S.; Gioacchini, G.; Merrifield, D.L.; Carnevali, O. Probiotic treatment reduces appetite and glucose level in the zebrafish model. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 18061. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  38. Maradonna, F.; Gioacchini, G.; Falcinelli, S.; Bertotto, D.; Radaelli, G.; Olivotto, I.; Carnevali, O. Probiotic supplementation promotes calcification in Danio rerio larvae: A molecular study. PloS ONE 2013, 8, e83155. [Google Scholar]
  39. Abid, A.; Davies, S.J.; Waines, P.; Emery, M.; Castex, M.; Gioacchini, G.; Carnevali, O.; Bickerdike, R.; Romero, J.; Merrifield, D.L. Dietary synbiotic application modulates Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) intestinal microbial communities and intestinal immunity. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 35, 1948–1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gioacchini, G.; Giorgini, E.; Olivotto, I.; Maradonna, F.; Merrifield, D.L.; Carnevali, O. The influence of probiotics on zebrafish Danio rerio innate immunity and hepatic stress. Zebrafish 2014, 11, 98–106. [Google Scholar]
  41. Gioacchini, G.; Ciani, E.; Pessina, A.; Cecchini, C.; Silvi, S.; Rodiles, A.; Merrifield, D.L.; Olivotto, I.; Carnevali, O. Effects of Lactogen 13, a new probiotic preparation, on gut microbiota and endocrine signals controlling growth and appetite of Oreochromis niloticus juveniles. Microb. Ecol. 2018, 76, 1063–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gioacchini, G.; Maradonna, F.; Lombardo, F.; Bizzaro, D.; Olivotto, I.; Carnevali, O. Increase of fecundity by probiotic administration in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Reproduction 2010, 140, 953–959. [Google Scholar]
  43. Giorgini, E.; Conti, C.; Ferraris, P.; Sabbatini, S.; Tosi, G.; Rubini, C.; Vaccari, L.; Gioacchini, G.; Carnevali, O. Effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus on zebrafish oocyte maturation: An FTIR imaging and biochemical analysis. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2010, 398, 3063–3072. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gioacchini, G.; Dalla Valle, L.; Benato, F.; Fimia, G.M.; Nardacci, R.; Ciccosanti, F.; Piacentini, M.; Borini, A.; Carnevali, O. Interplay between autophagy and apoptosis in the development of Danio rerio follicles and the effects of a probiotic. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2013, 25, 1115–1125. [Google Scholar]
  45. Vílchez, M.C.; Santangeli, S.; Maradonna, F.; Gioacchini, G.; Verdenelli, C.; Gallego, V.; Peñaranda, D.S.; Tveiten, H.; Pérez, L.; Carnevali, O. Effect of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus on the expression of genes involved in European eel spermatogenesis. Theriogenology 2015, 84, 1321–1331. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Martínez Cruz, P.; Ibáñez, A.; Monroy Hermosillo, O.; Ramírez Saad, H. Use of probiotics in aquaculture. ISRN Microbiol. 2012, 916845, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  47. Thongprajukaew, K.; Kovitvadhi, U.; Kovitvadhi, S.; Somsueb, P.; Rungruangsak-Torrissen, K. Effects of different modified diets on growth, digestive enzyme activities and muscle compositions in juvenile Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens Regan, 1910). Aquaculture 2011, 322, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hoseinifar, S.H.; Roosta, Z.; Hajimoradloo, A.; Vakili, F. The effects of Lactobacillus acidophilus as feed supplement on skin mucosal immune parameters, intestinal microbiota, stress resistance and growth performance of black swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2015, 42, 533–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Abraham, T.J.; Mondal, S.; Babu, C.S. Effect of Commercial Aquaculture Probiotic and Fish Gut Antagonistic Bacterial Flora on the Growth and Disease Resistance of Ornamental Fishes Carassius auratus and Xiphophorus helleri. Ege J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2008, 25, 27–30. [Google Scholar]
  50. Dharmaraj, S.; Dhevendaran, K. Evaluation of Streptomyces as a probiotic feed for the growth of ornamental fish Xiphophorus helleri. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2010, 48, 497–504. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ghosh, S.; Sinha, A.; Sahu, C. Effect of probiotic on reproductive performance in female livebearing ornamental fish. Aquac. Res. 2007, 38, 518–526. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ghosh, S.; Sinha, A.; Sahu, C. Dietary probiotic supplementation in growth and health of live-bearing ornamental fishes. Aquac. Nutr. 2007, 13, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rajan, M.; Revathi, U. Role of probiotics in Ornamental fish Platy Xiphophorus maculates. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2011, 5, 819–823. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sinha, A.; Ghosh, S.; Singh, D. Probiotics and nutrient supplement in artificial feed of gold fish (Carassius auratus). J. Indian Fish. Assoc. 2004, 31, 139–144. [Google Scholar]
  55. Anuar, N.S.; Omar, N.S.; Noordiyana, M.N.; Sharifah, N.E. Effect of commercial probiotics on the survival and growth performance of goldfish Carassius auratus. Aquac. Aquar. Conserv. Legis. 2017, 10, 1663–1670. [Google Scholar]
  56. Hernandez, L.; Barrera, T.; Mejia, J.; Mejia, G.; Del Carmen, M.; Dosta, M.; De Lara Andrade, R.; Sotres, J. Effects of the commercial probiotic Lactobacillus casei on the growth, protein content of skin mucus and stress resistance of juveniles of the Porthole livebearer Poecilopsis gracilis (Poecilidae). Aquac. Nutr. 2010, 16, 407–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Divya, K.; Isamma, A.; Ramasubramanian, V.; Sureshkumar, S.; Arunjith, T. Colonization of probiotic bacteria and its impact on ornamental fish Puntius conchonius. J. Environ. Biol. 2012, 33, 551. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Illanjiam, S.; Sivakumar, J.; Sundaram, C.S.; Rao, U. Comparative study of Probiotic Bacteria on ornamental fish giant gourami, Osphronemus goramy for its survival and growth. Res. J. Pharm. Technol. 2019, 12, 262–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Krishnamoorthy, M.; Nayak, B.; Nanda, A. In vivo and in vitro characterization of probiotic organisms for their microbial adhesion property isolated from Coconut toddy. Karbala Int. J. Mod. Sci. 2018, 4, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Moorthy, M.K.; Nayak, B.K.; Nanda, A. In vivo characterization of probiotic organism isolated from coconut toddy using ornamental fish, Black molly. Der Pharm. Lett. 2016, 8, 149–153. [Google Scholar]
  61. Schmidt, V.; Gomez-Chiarri, M.; Roy, C.; Smith, K.; Amaral-Zettler, L. Subtle microbiome manipulation using probiotics reduces antibiotic-associated mortality in fish. Msystems 2017, 2, e00133-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Akbar, I.; Radhakrishnan, D.K.; Venkatachalam, R.; Sathrajith, A.T.; Velayudhannair, K.; Sureshkumar, S. Studies on probiotics administration and its influence on gut microflora of ornamental fish Brachydanio rerio larvae. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 336–344. [Google Scholar]
  63. Avella, M.A.; Place, A.; Du, S.J.; Williams, E.; Silvi, S.; Zohar, Y.; Carnevali, O. Lactobacillus rhamnosus accelerates zebrafish backbone calcification and gonadal differentiation through effects on the GnRH and IGF systems. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e45572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lin, Y.S.; Saputra, F.; Chen, Y.C.; Hu, S.Y. Dietary administration of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens R8 reduces hepatic oxidative stress and enhances nutrient metabolism and immunity against Aeromonas hydrophila and Streptococcus agalactiae in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019, 86, 410–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gioacchini, G.; Rossi, G.; Carnevali, O. Host-probiotic interaction: New insight into the role of the endocannabinoid system by in vivo and ex vivo approaches. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yi, C.C.; Liu, C.H.; Chuang, K.P.; Chang, Y.T.; Hu, S.Y. A potential probiotic Chromobacterium aquaticum with bacteriocin-like activity enhances the expression of indicator genes associated with nutrient metabolism, growth performance and innate immunity against pathogen infections in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019, 93, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Gioacchini, G.; Giorgini, E.; Merrifield, D.L.; Hardiman, G.; Borini, A.; Vaccari, L.; Carnevali, O. Probiotics can induce follicle maturational competence: The Danio rerio case. Biol. Reprod. 2012, 86, 65,1-11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Qin, C.; Xu, L.; Yang, Y.; He, S.; Dai, Y.; Zhao, H.; Zhou, Z. Comparison of fecundity and offspring immunity in zebrafish fed Lactobacillus rhamnosus CICC 6141 and Lactobacillus casei BL23. Reproduction 2014, 147, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Falcinelli, S.; Randazzo, B.; Vargas Abundez, J.A.; Cangiotti, G.; Olivotto, I.; Carnevali, O. Kluyveromyces fragilis RNA extract supplementation promotes growth, modulates stress and inflammatory response in zebrafish. Aquac. Res. 2018, 49, 1521–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Caruffo, M.; Navarrete, N.C.; Salgado, O.A.; Faúndez, N.B.; Gajardo, M.C.; Feijóo, C.G.; Reyes-Jara, A.; García, K.; Navarrete, P. Protective yeasts control V. anguillarum pathogenicity and modulate the innate immune response of challenged zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2016, 6, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Avella, M.A.; Olivotto, I.; Silvi, S.; Place, A.R.; Carnevali, O. Effect of dietary probiotics on clownfish: A molecular approach to define how lactic acid bacteria modulate development in a marine fish. Am. J. Physiol.-Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2010, 298, R359–R371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Ahmadifard, N.; Rezaei Aminlooi, V.; Tukmechi, A.; Agh, N. Evaluation of the impacts of long-term enriched Artemia with Bacillus subtilis on growth performance, reproduction, intestinal microflora, and resistance to Aeromonas hydrophila of ornamental fish Poecilia latipinna. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2019, 11, 957–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Eslamloo, K.; Akhavan, S.R.; Henry, M.A. Effects of dietary administration of Bacillus probiotics on the non-specific immune responses of tinfoil barb, Barbonymus schwanenfeldii (Actinopterygii: Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae). Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 2013, 43, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gomes, L.C.; Brinn, R.P.; Marcon, J.L.; Dantas, L.A.; Brandão, F.R.; Sampaio de Abreu, J.; McComb, D.M.; Baldisserotto, B. Using Efinol® L during transportation of marbled hatchetfish, Carnegiella strigata (Günther). Aquac. Res. 2008, 39, 1292–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gomes, L.C.; Brinn, R.P.; Marcon, J.L.; Dantas, L.A.; Brandão, F.R.; De Abreu, J.S.; Lemos, P.E.M.; McComb, D.M.; Baldisserotto, B. Benefits of using the probiotic Efinol® L during transportation of cardinal tetra, Paracheirodon axelrodi (Schultz), in the Amazon. Aquac. Res. 2009, 40, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Neissi, A.; Rafiee, G.; Nematollahi, M.; Safari, O. The effect of Pediococcus acidilactici bacteria used as probiotic supplement on the growth and non-specific immune responses of green terror, Aequidens rivulatus. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 35, 1976–1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Azimirad, M.; Meshkini, S.; Ahmadifard, N.; Hoseinifar, S.H. The effects of feeding with synbiotic (Pediococcus acidilactici and fructooligosaccharide) enriched adult Artemia on skin mucus immune responses, stress resistance, intestinal microbiota and performance of angelfish (Pterophyllum danio). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2016, 54, 516–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Dias, J.A.R.; Abe, H.A.; Sousa, N.C.; Silva, R.D.F.; Cordeiro, C.A.M.; Gomes, G.F.E.; Ready, J.S.; Mouriño, J.L.P.; Martins, M.L.; Carneiro, P.C.F. Enterococcus faecium as potential probiotic for ornamental neotropical cichlid fish, Pterophyllum scalare (Schultze, 1823). Aquac. Int. 2019, 27, 463–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Rajagopalan Girijakumari, N.; Ethiraja, K.; Narayanasamy Marimuthu, P. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of probiotic properties of Enterobacter cloacae in Kenyi cichlid, Maylandia lombardoi. Aquac. Int. 2018, 26, 959–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Firouzbakhsh, F.; Noori, F.; Khalesi, M.K.; Jani-Khalili, K. Effects of a probiotic, protexin, on the growth performance and hematological parameters in the Oscar (Astronotus ocellatus) fingerlings. Fish Physiol. Biochem. 2011, 37, 833–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rezaei Aminlooi, V.; Ahmadifard, N.; Tukmechi, A.; Agh, N. Improvement of reproductive indices, lysozyme activity, and disease resistance in live-bearing ornamental fish, Poecilia latipinna using Artemia supplementation with treated yeast cell, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Aquac. Res. 2019, 50, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gunasundari, V.; Kumar, T.A.; Ghosh, S.; Kumaresan, S. An ex vivo loom to evaluate the brewer’s yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae in clownfish aquaculture with special reference to Amphiprion percula (Lacepede, 1802). Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2013, 13, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pedersen, M.B.; Iversen, S.L.; Sørensen, K.I.; Johansen, E. The long and winding road from the research laboratory to industrial applications of lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2005, 29, 611–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Brown, L.; Pingitore, E.V.; Mozzi, F.; Saavedra, L.; M Villegas, J.; M Hebert, E. Lactic acid bacteria as cell factories for the generation of bioactive peptides. Protein Pept. Lett. 2017, 24, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mazzoli, R.; Bosco, F.; Mizrahi, I.; Bayer, E.A.; Pessione, E. Towards lactic acid bacteria-based biorefineries. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 1216–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Venegas-Ortega, M.G.; Flores-Gallegos, A.C.; Martínez-Hernández, J.L.; Aguilar, C.N.; Nevárez-Moorillón, G.V. Production of bioactive peptides from lactic acid bacteria: A sustainable approach for healthier foods. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 1039–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Vieco-Saiz, N.; Belguesmia, Y.; Raspoet, R.; Auclair, E.; Gancel, F.; Kempf, I.; Drider, D. Benefits and inputs from lactic acid bacteria and their bacteriocins as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters during food-animal production. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Anjum, N.; Maqsood, S.; Masud, T.; Ahmad, A.; Sohail, A.; Momin, A. Lactobacillus acidophilus: Characterization of the species and application in food production. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2014, 54, 1241–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Bull, M.; Plummer, S.; Marchesi, J.; Mahenthiralingam, E. The life history of Lactobacillus acidophilus as a probiotic: A tale of revisionary taxonomy, misidentification and commercial success. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2013, 349, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Matthews, A.; Grimaldi, A.; Walker, M.; Bartowsky, E.; Grbin, P.; Jiranek, V. Lactic acid bacteria as a potential source of enzymes for use in vinification. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 5715–5731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fritsch, C.; Jänsch, A.; Ehrmann, M.A.; Toelstede, S.; Vogel, R.F. Characterization of cinnamoyl esterases from different Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria. Curr. Microbiol. 2017, 74, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Sojan, J.M.; Gioacchini, G.; Giorgini, E.; Orlando, P.; Tiano, L.; Maradonna, F.; Carnevali, O. Zebrafish caudal fin as a model to investigate the role of probiotics in bone regeneration. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 8057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yoshida, T.; Kruger, R.; Inglis, V. Augmentation of non-specific protection in African catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Burchell), by the long-term oral administration of immunostimulants. J. Fish Dis. 1995, 18, 195–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Engstad, R.E.; Robertsen, B.; Frivold, E. Yeast glucan induces increase in lysozyme and complement-mediated haemolytic activity in Atlantic salmon blood. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 1992, 2, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Siwicki, A.K.; Anderson, D.P.; Rumsey, G.L. Dietary intake of immunostimulants by rainbow trout affects non-specific immunity and protection against furunculosis. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 1994, 41, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Katya, K.; Yun, Y.-h.; Park, G.; Lee, J.-Y.; Yoo, G.; Bai, S.C. Evaluation of the efficacy of fermented by-product of mushroom, Pleurotus ostreatus, as a fish meal replacer in juvenile Amur Catfish, Silurus asotus: Effects on growth, serological characteristics and immune responses. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 27, 1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Hernández, A.J.; Romero, A.; Gonzalez-Stegmaier, R.; Dantagnan, P. The effects of supplemented diets with a phytopharmaceutical preparation from herbal and macroalgal origin on disease resistance in rainbow trout against Piscirickettsia salmonis. Aquaculture 2016, 454, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Giri, S.S.; Sukumaran, V.; Oviya, M. Potential probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum VSG3 improves the growth, immunity, and disease resistance of tropical freshwater fish, Labeo rohita. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 34, 660–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Ringø, E.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Ghosh, K.; Doan, H.V.; Beck, B.R.; Song, S.K. Lactic Acid Bacteria in Finfish—An Update. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Ten Doeschate, K.; Coyne, V. Improved growth rate in farmed Haliotis midae through probiotic treatment. Aquaculture 2008, 284, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wanka, K.M.; Damerau, T.; Costas, B.; Krueger, A.; Schulz, C.; Wuertz, S. Isolation and characterization of native probiotics for fish farming. BMC Microbiol. 2018, 18, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Balcázar, J.L.; De Blas, I.; Ruiz-Zarzuela, I.; Cunningham, D.; Vendrell, D.; Muzquiz, J.L. The role of probiotics in aquaculture. Vet. Microbiol. 2006, 114, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hoseinifar, S.H.; Dadar, M.; Ringø, E. Modulation of nutrient digestibility and digestive enzyme activities in aquatic animals: The functional feed additives scenario. Aquac. Res. 2017, 48, 3987–4000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Welker, T.L.; Lim, C. Use of probiotics in diets of tilapia. J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 2011, 1, 014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ray, A.K.; Ghosh, K.; Ringø, E. Enzyme-producing bacteria isolated from fish gut: A review. Aquac. Nutr. 2012, 18, 465–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ibrahem, M.D. Evolution of probiotics in aquatic world: Potential effects, the current status in Egypt and recent prospectives. J. Adv. Res. 2015, 6, 765–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. He, S.; Liu, W.; Zhou, Z.; Mao, W.; Ren, P.; Marubashi, T.; Ringø, E. Evaluation of probiotic strain Bacillus subtilis C-3102 as a feed supplement for koi carp (Cyprinus carpio). J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 2011, S1, 005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Irianto, A.; Austin, B. Probiotics in aquaculture. J. Fish Dis. 2002, 25, 633–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hosseini, M.; Miandare, H.K.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Yarahmadi, P. Dietary Lactobacillus acidophilus modulated skin mucus protein profile, immune and appetite genes expression in gold fish (Carassius auratus gibelio). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2016, 59, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Miandare, H.K.; Farvardin, S.; Shabani, A.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Ramezanpour, S.S. The effects of galactooligosaccharide on systemic and mucosal immune response, growth performance and appetite related gene transcript in goldfish (Carassius auratus gibelio). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2016, 55, 479–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Safari, O.; Atash, M. Study on the effects of probiotic, Pediococcus acidilactici in the diet on some biological indices of Oscar Astronauts ocellatus. Int. Res. J. Appl. Basic Sci. 2013, 4, 3458–3464. [Google Scholar]
  112. Ramezani, F.; Moghaddasi, B. Dietary effects of the probiotic Pediococcus acidilactici on growth and feeding indices in the convict cichlid fish (Amatitlania nigrofasciata). J. Anim. Biol. 2017, 9, 45–57. [Google Scholar]
  113. Rosovitz, M.; Voskuil, M.; Chambliss, G. Bacillus Systematic Bacteriology; Arnold Press: London, UK, 1998; pp. 709–720. [Google Scholar]
  114. Dhanaraj, M.; Haniffa, M.; Singh, S.A.; Arockiaraj, A.J.; Ramakrishanan, C.M.; Seetharaman, S.; Arthimanju, R. Effect of probiotics on growth performance of koi carp (Cyprinus carpio). J. Appl. Aquac. 2010, 22, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Miest, J.J.; Arndt, C.; Adamek, M.; Steinhagen, D.; Reusch, T.B. Dietary β-glucan (MacroGard®) enhances survival of first feeding turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) larvae by altering immunity, metabolism and microbiota. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2016, 48, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Sitorus, H.; Ramija, K.E.; Akhir, I.S. Effect of probiotic em-4 in feeds on the growth and survival rate of goldfish (Carrasius auratus). Int. J. Fish. Aquat. Stud. 2018, 6, 108–111. [Google Scholar]
  117. Sahandi, J.; Jafaryan, H.; Moradi, P.; Tadiri, C. Effect of in-feed probiotic blend on growth performance and infection resistance of the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Bulg. J. Vet. Med. 2013, 16, 243–250. [Google Scholar]
  118. Abraham, T.J.; Babu, S.; Banerjee, T. Influence of a fish bacterium Lactobacillus sp. on the production of swordtail Xiphophorus helleri (Heckel 1848). Bangladesh J. Fish. Res. 2007, 11, 65–74. [Google Scholar]
  119. Mohammadi, F.; Mousavi, S.M.; Zakeri, M.; Ahmadmoradi, E. Effect of dietary probiotic, Saccharomyces cerevisiae on growth performance, survival rate and body biochemical composition of three spot cichlid (Cichlasoma trimaculatum). Aquac. Aquar. Conserv. Legis. 2016, 9, 451–457. [Google Scholar]
  120. Gumus, E.; Aydin, B.; Kanyilmaz, M. Growth and feed utilization of goldfish (Carassius auratus) fed graded levels of brewers yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2016, 15, 1124–1133. [Google Scholar]
  121. Rajan, M.; Arockiaselvi, J.J. Isolation of intestinal microflora and its probiotic effect on feed utilization and growth of gold fish Carassius auratus. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 685–688. [Google Scholar]
  122. Subharanjani, S.; Gunarani, R.; Prema, P.; Immanuel, G. Potential influence of probiotic bacteria on the growth gut microflora of Carassius auratus. Int. J. Fish. Aquat. Stud. 2015, 2, 319–323. [Google Scholar]
  123. Chitra, G.; Krishnaveni, N. Effect of probiotics on reproductive performance in female livebearing ornamental fish Poecilia sphenops. Int. J. Pure Appl. Zool. 2013, 1, 249–254. [Google Scholar]
  124. Ahilan, B.; Shine, G.; Santhanam, R. Influence of probiotics on the growth and gut microbial load of juvenile goldfish (Carassius auratus). Asian Fish. Sci. 2004, 17, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Ahire, J.; Mokashe, N.; Chaudhari, B. Effect of dietary probiotic Lactobacillus helveticus on growth performance, antioxidant levels, and absorption of essential trace elements in goldfish (Carassius auratus). Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2019, 11, 559–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Rahman, M.L.; Akhter, S.; Mallik, M.K.M.; Rashid, I. Probiotic enrich dietary effect on the reproduction of butter catfish, Ompok pabda (Hamilton, 1872). Int. J. Curr. Res. Life Sci. 2018, 7, 866–873. [Google Scholar]
  127. Lombardo, F.; Gioacchini, G.; Carnevali, O. Probiotic-based nutritional effects on killifish reproduction. Fish. Aquac. J. 2011, 27, 33. [Google Scholar]
  128. Valcarce, D.G.; Riesco, M.F.; Martínez-Vázquez, J.M.; Robles, V. Diet supplemented with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory probiotics improves sperm quality after only one spermatogenic cycle in zebrafish model. Nutrients 2019, 11, 843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Mehdinejad, N.; Imanpour, M.R.; Jafari, V. Combined or individual effects of dietary probiotic, Pediococcus acidilactici and nucleotide on reproductive performance in goldfish (Carassius auratus). Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2019, 11, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Giommi, C.; Habibi, H.R.; Candelma, M.; Carnevali, O.; Maradonna, F. Probiotic administration mitigates bisphenol A reproductive toxicity in zebrafish. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Zibiene, G.; Zibas, A. Impact of commercial probiotics on growth parameters of European catfish (Silurus glanis) and water quality in recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquac. Int. 2019, 27, 1751–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Sahu, M.K.; Swarnakumar, N.; Sivakumar, K.; Thangaradjou, T.; Kannan, L. Probiotics in aquaculture: Importance and future perspectives. Indian J. Microbiol. 2008, 48, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Dalmin, G.; Kathiresan, K.; Purushothaman, A. Effect of probiotics on bacterial population and health status of shrimp in culture pond ecosystem. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2001, 39, 939–942. [Google Scholar]
  134. Jahangiri, L.; Esteban, M.Á. Administration of probiotics in the water in finfish aquaculture systems: A review. Fishes 2018, 3, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Qi, Z.; Zhang, X.-H.; Boon, N.; Bossier, P. Probiotics in aquaculture of China—Current state, problems and prospect. Aquaculture 2009, 290, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Tuan, T.N.; Duc, P.M.; Hatai, K. Overview of the use of probiotics in aquaculture. Int. J. Res. Fish. Aquac. 2013, 3, 89–97. [Google Scholar]
  137. Mahmud, S.; Ali, M.L.; Alam, M.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Jørgensen, N.O. Effect of probiotic and sand filtration treatments on water quality and growth of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and pangas (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) in earthen ponds of southern Bangladesh. J. Appl. Aquac. 2016, 28, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Lalloo, R.; Ramchuran, S.; Ramduth, D.; Görgens, J.; Gardiner, N. Isolation and selection of Bacillus spp. as potential biological agents for enhancement of water quality in culture of ornamental fish. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 103, 1471–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Nathanailides, C.; Kolygas, M.; Choremi, K.; Mavraganis, T.; Gouva, E.; Vidalis, K.; Athanassopoulou, F. Probiotics have the potential to significantly mitigate the environmental impact of freshwater fish farms. Fishes 2021, 6, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Lin, S.; Pan, Y.; Luo, L.; Luo, L. Effects of dietary β-1, 3-glucan, chitosan or raffinose on the growth, innate immunity and resistance of koi (Cyprinus carpio koi). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2011, 31, 788–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Nawaz, A.; Bakhsh, J.A.; Irshad, S.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Xiong, H. The functionality of prebiotics as immunostimulant: Evidences from trials on terrestrial and aquatic animals. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018, 76, 272–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Gibson, G.R.; Rastall, R.A. Gastrointestinal infections and the protective role of probiotics and prebiotics. Food Sci. Technol. Bull. Funct. Foods 2003, 1, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Yousefi, S.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Paknejad, H.; Hajimoradloo, A. The effects of dietary supplement of galactooligosaccharide on innate immunity, immune related genes expression and growth performance in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018, 73, 192–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. de Azevedo, R.V.; da Silva-Azevedo, D.K.; dos Santos-Júnior, J.M.; Fosse-Filho, J.C.; de Andrade, D.R.; Tavares-Braga, L.G.; Vidal-Júnior, M.V. Effects of dietary mannan oligosaccharide on the growth, survival, intestinal morphometry and nonspecific immune response for Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens Regan, 1910) larvae. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 2016, 44, 800–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Ramanadevi, V.; Muthazhagan, K.; Ajithkumar, T.; Thangaraj, M. The efficacy of dietary yeast mannan oligosaccharide on growth and survival rate in Amphiprion ocellaris fingerlings. Eur. J. Biotechnol. Biosci. 2013, 1, 12–15. [Google Scholar]
  146. Forsatkar, M.N.; Nematollahi, M.A.; Rafiee, G.; Farahmand, H.; Lawrence, C. Effects of the prebiotic mannan-oligosaccharide on the stress response of feed deprived zebrafish (Danio rerio). Physiol. Behav. 2017, 180, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Mirzapour-Rezaee, S.; Farhangi, M.; Rafiee, G. Combined effects of dietary mannan-and fructo-oligosaccharide on growth indices, body composition, intestinal bacterial flora and digestive enzymes activity of regal peacock (Aulonocara stuartgranti). Aquac. Nutr. 2017, 23, 629–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Hoseinifar, S.H.; Khalili, M.; Sun, Y.-Z. Intestinal histomorphology, autochthonous microbiota and growth performance of the oscar (Astronotus ocellatus Agassiz, 1831) following dietary administration of xylooligosaccharide. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2016, 32, 1137–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Xu, B.; Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Lin, Q. Effect of prebiotic xylooligosaccharides on growth performances and digestive enzyme activities of allogynogenetic crucian carp (Carassius auratus gibelio). Fish Physiol. Biochem. 2009, 35, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Abasali, H.; Mohamad, S. Effect of prebiotic immunogen on reproductive performance in female swordtail Xiphophorus helleri. Agric. J. 2011, 6, 155–160. [Google Scholar]
  151. Abasali, H.; Mohamad, S. Effect of dietary probiotic level on the reproductive performance of female platy Xiphophorus maculatus. Agric. J. 2011, 6, 119–123. [Google Scholar]
  152. Akrami, R.; Rahnama, B.; Chitsaz, H.; Razeghi Mansour, M. Effects of dietary inulin on growth performance, survival, body composition, stress resistance and some hematological parameters of Gibel carp juveniles (Carassius auratus gibelio). Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2015, 14, 1072–1082. [Google Scholar]
  153. Safari, R.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Nejadmoghadam, S.; Jafar, A. Transciptomic study of mucosal immune, antioxidant and growth related genes and non-specific immune response of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) fed dietary Ferula (Ferula assafoetida). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2016, 55, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Safari, O.; Sarkheil, M. Dietary administration of eryngii mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii) powder on haemato-immunological responses, bactericidal activity of skin mucus and growth performance of koi carp fingerlings (Cyprinus carpio koi). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018, 80, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Savolainen, L.C.; Gamin, D.M., 3rd. Evaluation of dairy-yeast prebiotic supplementation in the diet of juvenile goldfish in the presence or absence of phytoplankton and zooplankton. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 2009, 21, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Ghashlaghi, P.; Rashidian, G.; Chardeh Baladehi, E.; Ghafari Farsani, H. Effect of synbiotic biomin imbo on growth parameters, survival, digestive enzymes and mucus parameters of banded cichlide (Heros severus). Aquat. Physiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 3, 49–74. [Google Scholar]
  157. Mahghani, F.; Gharaei, A.; Ghaffari, M.; Akrami, R. Dietary synbiotic improves the growth performance, survival and innate immune response of Gibel carp (Carassius auratus gibelio) juveniles. Int. J. Aquat. Biol. 2014, 2, 99–104. [Google Scholar]
  158. Nekoubin, H.; Gharedaashi, E.; Imanpour, M.R.; Nowferesti, H.; Asgharimoghadam, A. The influence of synbiotic (Biomin Imbo) on growth factors and survival rate of Zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae via supplementation with biomar. Glob. Vet. 2012, 8, 503–506. [Google Scholar]
  159. Lin, S.; Mao, S.; Guan, Y.; Luo, L.; Luo, L.; Pan, Y. Effects of dietary chitosan oligosaccharides and Bacillus coagulans on the growth, innate immunity and resistance of koi (Cyprinus carpio koi). Aquaculture 2012, 342, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Ye, J.D.; Wang, K.; Li, F.D.; Sun, Y.Z. Single or combined effects of fructo- and mannan oligosaccharide supplements and Bacillus clausii on the growth, feed utilization, body composition, digestive enzyme activity, innate immune response and lipid metabolism of the Japanese flounder Paralichthys olivaceus. Aquac. Nutr. 2011, 17, e902–e911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Iger, Y.; Abraham, M. The process of skin healing in experimentally wounded carp. J. Fish Biol. 1990, 36, 421–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Cerezuela, R.; Meseguer, J.; Esteban, M. Current Knowledge in Synbiotic Use for Fish Aquaculture: A Review. J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 2011, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  163. Rahimnejad, S.; Guardiola, F.A.; Leclercq, E.; Esteban, M.Á.; Castex, M.; Sotoudeh, E.; Lee, S.-M. Effects of dietary supplementation with Pediococcus acidilactici MA18/5M, galactooligosaccharide and their synbiotic on growth, innate immunity and disease resistance of rockfish (Sebastes schlegeli). Aquaculture 2018, 482, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Terpou, A.; Papadaki, P.; Lappa, I.K.; Kachrimanidou, V.; Bosnea, L.A.; Kopsahelis, N. Probiotics in Food Systems: Significance and Emerging Strategies Towards Improved Viability and Delivery of Enhanced Beneficial Value. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 13 01583 g001 550
Figure 1. Export share of major markets by region, 2014 (in USD million).
Figure 1. Export share of major markets by region, 2014 (in USD million).
Animals 13 01583 g001
Animals 13 01583 g002 550
Figure 2. Export share of major markets by country, 2014 (in USD million).
Figure 2. Export share of major markets by country, 2014 (in USD million).
Animals 13 01583 g002
Table
Table 1. Common parasites isolated from ornamental fishes.
Table 1. Common parasites isolated from ornamental fishes.
Scientific NameCommon NameOccurrenceReasonHost
Ichthyobodo necatorFlagellates (Costia)Skin, gillsPoor water qualityCarassius auratus
Spironucleus vortensBinucleate flagellateGastrointestinal tracts Poor water quality, malnutrition, overcrowding, fluctuating temperaturesPterophyllum sp.
Cryptobia lubilansCryptobiaGastrointestinal tracts, abdominal organsPoor water qualityCarassius auratus,
Herichthys yanoguttatus, Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum, Cichlasoma meeki
Amyloodinium ocellatumDinoflagellatesGill, fins, skinPoor water qualityAmphiprion sp.
Oodinium pilluariusDinoflagellatesGill, skinPoor water qualityCarassius auratus
Ichthyophthirius multifilisHolotrichous ciliateGill, eyes, skinPoor water qualityCarassius auratus
Cryptocaryon irritansMarine white spot (Ich)Gill, skinPoor water qualityCarassius auratus,
Zebrasoma xanthurum,
Chaetodon adiergastos, Paracanthurus hepatus
Trichodina sp.MonogeneanGill, skinPoor water qualityCarassius auratus,
Betta splendens, Pterophyllum sp., Paracheirodon innesi, Trichopodus trichopterus,
Xiphophorus hellerii,
Betta splendens
Trichodonella sp.MonogeneanGill, skinPoor water qualityCarassius auratus,
Betta splendens, Pterophyllum sp., Paracheirodon innesi, Trichopodus trichopterus
Tripartiella sp.MonogeneanGill, skinPoor water qualityXiphophorus hellerii,
Betta splendens
Epistylis (Heteropolaria) sp.MonogeneanSkin, fins, gillsHigh organic content watersAstronotus ocellatus, Carassius auratus,
Poecilia reticulata, Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum, Pterophyllum scalare, Poecilia sphenops
Tricodina sp.MonogeneanGill, skinPoor water qualityCarassius auratus,
Poecilia reticulata, Pterophyllum scalare, Symphsodon discus,
Poecilia latipinna
ChilodonellaCiliateGill, skinPoor water qualityAstronotus ocellatus, Carassius auratus,
Poecilia reticulata, Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum, Pterophyllum scalare, Poecilia sphenops
HexamitaFlagellateGastrointestinal ductPoor water qualityPoecilia reticulata, Pterophyllum scalare
Dactylogyrus sp.MonogeneanSkin, fins, gillsPoor water qualityCarassius auratus
Gyrodactylus sp.MonogeneanSkin, fins, gillsPoor water qualityCarassius auratus
Bothriocephalus sp.TapewormsDigestive tract, coelomic cavityPoor water qualityXiphophorus hellerii
Eustrongylides sp. NematodeMuscle, liver, intestinal, Abdomens, gutsPoor water qualityPoecilia reticulata,
Danio rerio,
Pterophyllum scalare
Capillaria pterophylliNematodeIntestinal tractPoor water qualityArchocentrus nigrofasciatus, Pelvicachromis pulcher, Carassius auratus, Trichogaster trichopterus, Hyphessobrycon anisitsi
PentastomidsTongue wormsSkin, body cavity, connective tissue, musclePoor water qualityArchocentrus nigrofasciatus, Xiphophorus hellerii, Poecilia sphenops, Xiphophorus maculatus
ArgulusFish louseSkinPoor water qualityCarassius auratus
LernaeaAnchor wormSkinPoor water qualityCarassius auratus
Table
Table 2. Common bacteria isolated from ornamental fishes.
Table 2. Common bacteria isolated from ornamental fishes.
Scientific NameCommon NameSymptomsReasonHost
Aeromonas hydrophilaAeromonas Septicemia (MAS)Hemorrhagic septicemia in skin, fin, oral cavity, ulceration in epidermisStress, overcrowding, contaminated waterCarassius auratus, Xiphophorus hellerii,
Colisa lalia,
Molliensia sphenops
Aeromonas caviaeGastroenteritisHemorrhagic septicemia Contaminated water Carassius auratus, Datnioides polota,
Poecilia sphenops, Xiphophorus hellerii,
Carassius auratus, Datnioides polota,
Poecilia sphenops
Aeromonas salmonicidaFurunculosisHemorrhage in skin, fin, oral cavity, musclesContaminated water Carassius auratus,
Puntius conchonius
Flexibactor columnarColumnaris Skin, gills lesions and necrosisCrowded unhygienic conditions, cold snaps stressCarassius auratus, Paracheirodon innesi
Streptococci iniaeStreptocosisErratic swimming, darkening of skin, hemorrhages in eye, gill, vent, ascites, dropsy, Contaminated waterPethia conchonius,
Danio rerio
Edwardsiella ictaluriEdwardsiellosisUlcer in skin, spiral and erratic swimming, hemorrhage and inflammation in tissuesContaminated waterDanio devario,
Puntius conchonius, Molliensia sphenops
Vibrio vulnificusVibriosisErratic swimming, hemorrhageContaminated waterPoecilia sphenops
Table
Table 3. Common virus isolated from ornamental fishes.
Table 3. Common virus isolated from ornamental fishes.
NameSymptomsHost
Carp pox viral disease (CYHV—1)Grey lesions on the body and finsCarassius auratus
Cyprinid herpesviral disease (CYHV—2)Hematopoietic necrosisCarassius auratus
Herpesviral hematopoietic necrosis (HVHN/CyHV-2)Softening and discoloration of the spleen and kidney, necrotic foci in the hematopoietic tissue, splenic pulp, pancreasCarassius auratus
Spring Viremia of Carp (SVC)Darkening of the skin, exophthalmia, ascites, pale gills, hemorrhage and a protruding vent with thick mucoid fecal castsCarassius auratu
Viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS)lethargy, darkening of the skin, exophthalmia, anemia (pale gills), hemorrhages at the base of the fins, gills, eyes, skinPterophyllumscalare
Banggai Cardinalfish Iridovirus (BCIR)Lethargy. respiratory distress (rapid movement of opercula)Barbus graellsii
Dwarf Gourami Iridovirus (DGIR)Necrosis in spleen and kidney, pale coloration, loss of appetite, lesions on the body ascites (abdominal swelling)Pterapogon kauderni
Reovirus (head and lateral line erosion, HLLE)HemorrhagicTrichogaster lalius
Koi herpesviral disease (KHV) Necrosis of gill epithelium copious secretion of mucus on the gills and skins and necrosis of gill tissue, lethargy, anorexia, excessive gill necrosis, gill and body mucus and signs such as ulceration, skin hemorrhages, petechial ecchymosis and fin rot, erosion of primary lamellae, fusion of secondary lamellae and swelling at the tips of the primary and secondary lamellaePterophyllum sp.,
Pterophyllum scalare
IridovirusAbdominal distention exophthalmia and pale gills abdominal swellingsPoecilia reticulata,
Osphronemus goramy,
Pterophyllum sp.
Table
Table 4. Common fungi isolated from ornamental fishes.
Table 4. Common fungi isolated from ornamental fishes.
Scientific NameCommon NameConditionHost
Saprolegnia sp.SaprolegniasisPoor water qualityPterophyllum sp.,
Icthyophonus hoferiIchthyophoniasisSkin a sandpaper textureGymnocorymbus ternetzi,
Pentius tetrazona
Aphanomyces invadansEpizootic ulcerative syndrome (EUS)Erode underlying tissues, unilateral or bilateral clouding of the eye, red spots or small hemorrhagic lesions on the surface of fish, ulcers and eventually large necrotic erosionsBarbus thamalakanensis, Glossogobius giuris,
Carassius auratus
Table
Table 5. The effects of microbial feed additives on ornamental fish health, welfare and reproduction.
Table 5. The effects of microbial feed additives on ornamental fish health, welfare and reproduction.
SpeciesProbiotic StrainEffectsReferences
Siamese fighting fish
(B. splendens)		L. plantarum KKU CRIT5Lack of evident beneficial effects. Timing and dose of administration are under review[47]
Green swordtail (X. helleri)L. acidophilusPositively modulated mucosal immune parameters[48]
Commercial formulation (Lactobacillus sp., Bacillus sp., S. faecium and S. cereviasiae)No beneficial effect observed against bacterial challenges[49]
Streptomyces sp. Improves food conversion efficiency and conversion rate[50]
B. subtilisIncreases the GSI, fertility and fecundity. Decreases morphological alteration of the larvae[51,52]
B. subtilisIncreases the GSI, fertility and fecundity. Decreases morphological alteration of the larvae[51,52,53]
Platy fish
(X. maculatus)		Commercial formulation containing Lactobacillus sp. Increase of muscle mass due to protein increase and fat decrease[54]
Goldfish
(C. auratus)		Commercial formulation
(Lactobacillus sp., Bacillus sp., S. faecium and S. cereviasiae)		No beneficial effect observed against bacterial challenges[49]
Mix of Lactobacillus sp. and Bacillus sp.No beneficial effect observed against Pseudomonas fuorescens[49]
Commercial mix (B. subtilis and B. licheniformis)Improvement of food digestibility, stress resistance and immune response[55]
L. caseiFaster recovery after the air-dive/stress test[56]
Porthole livebearer
(P. gracilis)		B. coagulans (L. sporogens), B. mesentericusScarce colonization of the gut but induction of significant microflora composition[57]
Rosy barb
(P. conchonius)		mixture of Bacillus sp. and Lactobacillus sp.Decreases mortality due to improvement in the quality of rearing waters [58]
Giant gourami
(O. goramy)		L. fermentum (KT183369) and B. subtilis sp. inaquasporium (KR816099) Good capacity to colonize the host gut [59,60]
Black molly
(P. sphenops)		B. pumilus RI06-95SmGut colonization; increases protection against pathogens[61]
P. inhibens S4SmIncreases tolerance to antibiotic treatment[61]
L. rhamnosusDecreases the number of gut pathogenic CFU/mL[62]
Zebrafish
(D. rerio)		L. rhamnosusSkeletogenesis acceleration[38]
L. rhamnosusAffects lipid and vitamin D metabolism, with a positive role in backbone calcification[63]
B. amyloliquefaciens R8Increases xylanase activity, 3-hydroxyacyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase and citrate synthase. Increases mRNA of glycolysis-related and anti-apoptotic signals [64]
Commercial mixture
(S. thermophilus DSM 24731, B. longum DSM 24736, B. breve DSM 24732, B. infantis DSM 24737,
L. acidophilus DSM 24735, L. plantarum DSM 24730, L. paracasei DSM 24733,
L. delbrueckii sp. bulgaricus DSM 24734),		Increased expression of Toll-like receptors and other immune factors. Decreases number of apoptotic cells[65]
L. rhamnosus IMC 501Upregulation of genes involved in innate immune responses and decrease in the abundance of stress- and apoptotic-related genes [40]
B. infantis and B. longumDecreased number of pathogenic species, but scarce gut colonization[62]
C. aquaticumIncreased hepatic mRNA expression of carbohydrate metabolism-related- and Innate immune-related genes [66]
L. rhamnosusIncreased fertility, fecundity and follicle maturation[26,42,67]
L. rhamnosus CIC6141
L. casei BL23		Improved reproduction[68]
K. fragilisDecreases stress biomarkers [69]
Yarrowia lipolytica 242 (Yl242) and Debaromyces hansenii 97 (Dh97)Improved the immune system (downregulation of 1b, tnfa, il10, c3, mpx)[70]
L. rhamnosusPositive modulation of signal involved in lipid and vitamin D metabolism[71]
Clownfish
(A. ocellaris)		B. subtilisHigher survival in antibiotic-treated fish, increased fertility and fecundity[72]
Sailfin Molly
(P. latipinna)		B. subtilis and
B. licheniformis		Increase in peroxidase and trypsin levels and resistance against bacterial challenges [73]
Tinfoil barb
(B. schwanenfeldii)		Commercial mixture (B. subtilis,
B. licheniformes,
L. acidophilus and
S. cerevisiae)		Improved water quality by reducing metabolic waste and stress response[74]
Marbled hatchetfish (C. strigata)Commercial mixture (B. subtilis,
B. licheniformes,
L. acidophilus and S. cerevisiae)		Improved water quality by reducing metabolic waste and stress response[75]
Cardinal tetra (P. axelrodi)P. acidilacticiSignificant increase in all non-specific immune system biomarkers (lysozyme activity, total immunoglobulin and alternative complement activity)[76]
Green terror
(A. rivulatus)		P. acidilacticiImproved stress response (modulation of lysozyme activity, immunoglobulin and protease levels)[77]
Angelfish
(P. danio)
Angelfish
(P. scalare) 		E. faeciumImproved fish viability[78]
E. cloacaeImproved resistance against P.shigelloides challenge (increased blood cell counts and respiratory activity)[79]
Kenyi cichlid (M. lombardoi)B. infantisAlteration of gut microbiota composition[57]
Rosy barb
(P. conchonius)		Commercial mixture (Lactobacillus sp,
B. bacterium, S. silivarius, E. faecium, A. oryzae,
C. pintolopesii		Positive effects on hematological factors[80]
Oscar
(A. ocellatus)		B. subtilisIncrease in the GSI, fertility and fecundity. Decreased morphological alteration of the larvae[51]
Guppy
(P. reticulata)		B. subtilisIncrease in the GSI, fertility and fecundity. Decreased morphological alteration of the larvae[51]
Gold black molly (P. sphenops)S. cerevisiaeImprovement of reproduction, stress response and resistance against pathogens[81]
Sailfish molly
(P. latipinna)		S. cerevisiaeImprovement of growth performance, feed utilization and disease resistance[82]
Orange clownfish (A. percula)
Table
Table 6. Effect of microbial feed additive supplementation on ornamental fish growth performance and survival rate.
Table 6. Effect of microbial feed additive supplementation on ornamental fish growth performance and survival rate.
Probiotic StrainFish NameParametersReference
Probiotic preparation A *Astronotus ocellatusSGR[80]
L. acidophilus (LAD) and/or brewer’s yeastCyprinus carpio koiSGR[114]
Lactobacillus sp.Xiphophorus helleriiSGR[118]
Probiotic preparation B **Carassius auratusSGR, SR[116]
S. cerevisiaeCichlasoma trimaculatumSGR, SR[119]
StreptomycesXiphophorus helleriSGR, AGR, RGR, FCR[50]
Commercial probioticsCarassius auratusSGR, WG, SR, FCR[55]
S. cerevisiaeCarassius auratusSGR, WG, FCR, PER[120]
Pseudomonas sp.Carassius auratusSGR, FCR, RGR[121]
B. cereusTrichogaster trichopterusSGR, SR [122]
LactobacillusCarassius auratusSGR, SR [54]
Bacillus, S. cerevisiaePoecilia reticulataSR[117]
Probiotic preparation C ***Poecilia sphenopsSR[123]
L. sporogenesCarassius auratusWG[124]
L. helveticusCarassius auratusSGR[125]
AGR: absolute growth rate, SGR: specific growth rate, RGR: relative growth rate, FCR: feed conversion ratio, SR: survival rate, WG: weight gain, RGR: relative growth rate, FCE: feed conversion efficiency, and RGR: relative growth rate; * contains L. paracasei, L. rhamnosus, L. acidophilus, L. bulgaricus, B. breve, B. infantis and S. thermophilus; ** contains (Lactobacillus sp., Azotobacter sp., Clostridia sp., Enterbacter sp., Agrobacterium sp., Erwinia sp., Pseudomonas sp. and lactate formed bacteria); *** contains a combination of S. faecalis, C. butyricum, B.mesentericus and L. sporogenes.
Table
Table 7. The effects of different prebiotic substances on ornamental fish species.
Table 7. The effects of different prebiotic substances on ornamental fish species.
Prebiotic SubstancesTarget SpeciesMeasured ResponsesReferences
MOSBetta splendensGP, IR↑, IHM[144]
Danio rerioGP↑, SR↑[146]
Aulonocara stuartgrantiGP↑, BC, DEA↑, IM[147]
Amphiprion ocellarisGP, SR↑[145]
XOSAstronotus ocellatusGP↑, IM, IHM, SR↑[148]
Carassius auratusGP↑, DEG↑, SR[149]
β-glucan, chitosan and raffinoseCyprinus carpio koiGP↑, IR↑, DR↑[140]
Preparation D *Xiphophorus maculatus Xiphophorus helleriiGSI↑, RP↑, SR↑[150,151]
InulinCarassius auratusGP↑, FU↑, BC, IM, HP, SR↑[152]
GOSCarassius auratusGP, IR↑, SR[110]
Danio rerioGP, IR↑[143]
FOSAulonocara stuartgrantiGP↑, BC, DEA↑, IM[147]
Ferula (Ferula asafoetida)
powder		Cyprinus carpio koiGP↑, FU↑, IR↑, HP↑, DEA↑, IM, DR↑, SR↑[153]
Eryngii mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii)Cyprinus carpio koiGP↑, FU↑, IR↑, HP↑, DEA↑, IM, DR↑, SR↑[154]
Preparation E **Carassius auratusGP, IR, DEA, IM, DR[155]
Notes: * composed of β-glucans and MOS. ** composed of partially autolyzed brewer’s yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, dairy components, and fermentation products. Prebiotic abbreviations: FOS—fructooligosaccharide, GOS—galactooligosaccharide, MOS—mannan-oligosaccharide, and XOS—xylooligosaccharide. Parameters investigated: GP—growth performance, FU—feed utilization, BC—body composition, IR—immunological response, HP—hematological/serum biochemical parameters, DEA—digestive enzyme activity, IM—intestinal microflora, IHM—intestinal histomorphology, RP—reproductive performance, DR—disease resistance, and SR—survival rate. ↑ denote significant increase.
Table
Table 8. The effects of different synbiotic mixtures on ornamental fish species.
Table 8. The effects of different synbiotic mixtures on ornamental fish species.
Synbiotic (Pre/Pro)Target SpeciesMeasured ResponsesReference
FOS/P. acidilacticiPterophyllum scalareGP↑, IR↑, IM, SR↑[78]
FOS/E. faeciumHeros severusGP↑, FU↑, IR↑, DEA↑, SR↑[156]
Carassius auratus gibelioGP↑, IR↑, SR[157]
Danio rerioGP↑, FU↑, RP↑, SR↑[158]
COS/B. coagulansCyprinus carpio koiGP↑, IR↑, HP↑, DR↑, SR↑[159]
FOS, MOS/B. clausiiParalichthys olivaceusGP↑, FU↑, BC, IR↑, HP, DEA↑, SR↑[160]
Notes: Bacterial genera abbreviations: B. = Bacillus, E. = Entercoccus, and P. = Pediococcus. Prebiotic abbreviations: COS—chitosan oligosaccharides, FOS—fructooligosaccharide, GOS—galactooligosaccharide, and MOS—mannan oligosaccharide. Parameters investigated: GP—growth performance, FU—feed utilization, BC—body composition, IR—immunological response, HP—hematological/serum biochemical parameters, DEA—digestive enzyme activity, IM—intestinal microflora, RP—reproductive performance, DR—disease resistance, and SR—survival rate. ↑ denote significant increase.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hoseinifar, S.H.; Maradonna, F.; Faheem, M.; Harikrishnan, R.; Devi, G.; Ringø, E.; Van Doan, H.; Ashouri, G.; Gioacchini, G.; Carnevali, O. Sustainable Ornamental Fish Aquaculture: The Implication of Microbial Feed Additives. Animals 2023, 13, 1583. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101583

AMA Style

Hoseinifar SH, Maradonna F, Faheem M, Harikrishnan R, Devi G, Ringø E, Van Doan H, Ashouri G, Gioacchini G, Carnevali O. Sustainable Ornamental Fish Aquaculture: The Implication of Microbial Feed Additives. Animals. 2023; 13(10):1583. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101583

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hoseinifar, Seyed Hossein, Francesca Maradonna, Mehwish Faheem, Ramasamy Harikrishnan, Gunapathy Devi, Einar Ringø, Hien Van Doan, Ghasem Ashouri, Giorgia Gioacchini, and Oliana Carnevali. 2023. "Sustainable Ornamental Fish Aquaculture: The Implication of Microbial Feed Additives" Animals 13, no. 10: 1583. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101583

APA Style

Hoseinifar, S. H., Maradonna, F., Faheem, M., Harikrishnan, R., Devi, G., Ringø, E., Van Doan, H., Ashouri, G., Gioacchini, G., & Carnevali, O. (2023). Sustainable Ornamental Fish Aquaculture: The Implication of Microbial Feed Additives. Animals, 13(10), 1583. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101583

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop