Next Article in Journal
Lysozyme Activity in the Hemolymph of Octopus vulgaris (Cuvier, 1797) Following Challenge with Gram-Negative Bacteria: Insights into Temperature-Driven Innate Immune Response
Previous Article in Journal
Transcriptomic and Metabolomic Analyses Provide Insights into Cryptocaryon irritans Resistance in Golden Pompano (Trachinotus ovatus)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fishes
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/fishes10090427
fishes-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:
Article

Effects of Different Organic Carbon Sources on Water Quality and Growth of Mugil cephalus Cultured in Biofloc Technology Systems

by
Julia Eva Ayazo Genes
†,
Mariana Holanda
and
Gabriele Lara
*
Escuela de Ciencias del Mar, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Avenida Universidad, 330, Valparaíso 23400000, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Programa de Doctorado en Acuicultura with Universidad de Chile, Universidad Católica del Norte y Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso.
Fishes 2025, 10(9), 427; https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10090427
Submission received: 22 July 2025 / Revised: 18 August 2025 / Accepted: 26 August 2025 / Published: 1 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue An Issue in Honor of Yoram Avnimelech: Application of Biofloc Technology (BFT))
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The addition of organic carbon sources in biofloc technology (BFT) systems promotes microbial community development, enhancing water quality, nutrient recycling, and supplemental feeding through microbial biomass. These characteristics make BFT a viable strategy for the cultivation of promising aquaculture species, such as Mugil cephalus. This study evaluated the effects of three carbon sources—unrefined cane sugar (locally known as chancaca), refined sucrose, and beet molasses—on water quality and growth performance of M. cephalus juveniles reared in a BFT system. Juvenile mullets (4.33 ± 2.09 g) were cultured for 45 days at a stocking density of 0.03 ± 0.01 kg·m−3, with biofloc pre-matured in ex situ tanks. Most water quality parameters showed no significant differences among treatments (p > 0.05), except for nitrite concentrations, which were significantly higher in the sucrose group (p < 0.05). The highest growth performance was observed in the sucrose treatment, with a weight gain (WG) of 4.26 ± 0.51 g, an average daily weight gain (AWG) of 0.09 ± 0.01 g, and a thermal growth coefficient (GF3) of 1.27 ± 0.15 at a constant temperature of 24 °C. Bromatological analysis of bioflocs revealed significantly higher crude protein (CP: 9.8%) and energy content (Kcal·100 g−1: 3.44 ± 0.2) in the sucrose treatment compared to chancaca (CP: 5.1%). These findings confirm that M. cephalus can be effectively cultured in BFT systems using simple carbon sources. Refined sucrose, due to its high solubility and nutritional contribution to biofloc formation, is recommended for improving growth performance and system efficiency in M. cephalus production.
Keywords:
Mugilidae; fish farming; growth performance; organic carbon; nitrogen compounds
Key Contribution: This study validates the use of biofloc technology as an effective and sustainable method for culturing Mugil cephalus juveniles using low-cost organic carbon sources. It identified refined sucrose as the most effective carbon source for growth and biofloc quality.

1. Introduction

Mugil cephalus, commonly known as flathead grey mullet, grey mullet, or simply mullet, is widely distributed across subtropical regions, inhabiting coastal and estuarine waters between 42° N and 42° S. It is an omnivorous and detritivorous species [1], classified as a low trophic level consumer [2], feeding primarily on detritus, benthic microalgae, foraminifera, filamentous algae [3], protists, meiofauna, and small invertebrates [4]. This species exhibits high adaptability, efficient growth, capacity to consume artificial feeds, resistance to handling, and compatibility with polyculture systems [5].
The species is catadromous, euryhaline, and cosmopolitan, occurring in coastal waters of tropical, subtropical, and temperate zones worldwide [6]. It is considered an important species for local fisheries in several countries [5]. Its tolerance to a wide range of salinities and low trophic position has recently positioned it as a promising candidate for sustainable aquaculture. However, its culture remains largely dependent on wild fry collection due to limitations in artificial reproduction and induced spawning, restricting its use mainly to semi-intensive polyculture systems in lagoons, lakes, or freshwater and brackish ponds [7].
Biofloc technology (BFT) is recognized as a sustainable alternative for intensive and super-intensive aquaculture with minimal or no water exchange [8]. The fundamental principle of BFT involves the transformation of metabolic waste into microbial protein through microbial community activity, promoted by increasing the carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) ratio via the addition of organic carbon sources [9]. BFT is particularly suited to species with detritivorous feeding habits and tolerance to fluctuating water quality, making M. cephalus a suitable candidate for rearing under these conditions.
Chile is a leading global aquaculture producer; however, production is concentrated in a limited number of primarily exotic species. The environmental impacts of salmonid cage farming have prompted the search for alternative species and technologies to support small- and medium-scale aquaculture development [10]. Owing to its robustness, adaptability, and compatibility with BFT systems, Mugil cephalus represents a promising native candidate for aquaculture diversification in Chile. Current production, however, is almost entirely derived from capture fisheries and artisanal landings, with reported averages of 115 tons in 2021, 107 tons in 2022, and only 63 tons in 2023. The highest catches are recorded in Region VII (Maule Region) with 50 tons, indicating strong fishing pressure on this resource (SERNAPESCA, 2024).
Several studies have examined the use of different organic carbon sources in BFT systems, mainly in the culture of species as tilapia and shrimp [11,12,13,14,15,16,17], being limited in species such as mullet. Carbon sources are critical for stabilizing water quality, influencing the biochemical composition of bioflocs, and shaping the microbial communities that mediate nutrient cycling [18,19]. These factors ultimately affect the growth performance of cultured species [8,20]. However, the effectiveness of carbon sources may vary depending on bacterial composition [21], temperature [22], and salinity [23,24]. Therefore, carbon source selection must consider not only biological and environmental factors but also cost and local market availability. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of three readily available and locally sourced carbon sources —unrefined cane sugar (locally known as chancaca), sucrose, and beet molasses—on water quality and growth performance of juvenile M. cephalus cultured in a BFT system, contributing to the development of profitable and sustainable aquaculture practices.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethics

This study was approved by the Bioethics and Biosafety Committee of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Chile (Code: BIOPUCVBA 465-2021). The 3R principles of Russell and Burch were applied. Fish behavior and water quality parameters were continuously monitored to ensure animal welfare. Water conditions were maintained within the recommended ranges for estuarine species and for BFT systems [18,25,26,27]. All procedures involving handling (e.g., biometric sampling) were performed under anesthesia to minimize stress and suffering.

2.2. Location

A total of 92 juvenile mullets were collected from the estuary of Boca del Río Maipo, in the province of San Antonio, Chile (33°37′10.4″ S, 71°37′22.4″ W), with the support of local artisanal fishermen. The fish were transported in tanks containing oxygen-supplemented water from the same estuary to the Centro de Investigación en Acuicultura Sustentable (CIAS), Escuela de Ciencias del Mar, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. During transport (approximately 75 min), temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH were continuously monitored.

2.3. Pre-Acclimation to Culture Conditions

Upon arrival at the laboratory, fish were acclimated to culture conditions (15 ppt salinity) over 45 days. Acclimation was considered complete when fish accepted artificial feed (balanced artificial feed for marine fish of 47.5% CP) and no mortalities were observed. Fish were maintained in 500 L fiberglass tanks with constant aeration and weekly 50% water exchange.

2.4. Experimental Conditions

Fish were stocked at a density of 88 fish.m−3 (initial biomass of 0.37 kg.m−3, corresponding to 7 fish per tank) with an average weight of 4.33 ± 2.09 g and 6.40 ± 1.15 cm total length.
Nine 100 L circular plastic tanks (80 L of useful volume) were used, each connected to an aeration system with microperforated polydiffuser hose (aerotubes 25 × 12 mm) for continuous aeration supply by means of 1 HP blowers (Vortex Gas Pump, 0.75 KW/1 HP, China). Each tank was equipped with individual heaters (RS-133 Electrical, Stainless Steel, China) to maintain an average temperature of 24 °C.
Three organic carbon sources were tested: (1) refined sucrose, commercial-grade white sugar composed almost entirely of sucrose; (2) unrefined cane sugar (chancaca), a solidified product from direct sugarcane juice boiling, forming hard, granulated blocks; and (3) beet molasses, a viscous by-product from the processing of Beta vulgaris (sugar beet). Three treatments were established based on the carbon source, with three replicates per treatment, sucrose, chancaca, and beet molasses, with a C:N ratio of 15:1. Carbon source additions were adjusted according to ammonium and nitrite concentrations, according to the method proposed by Avnimelech [28]. The rearing period lasted 45 days.

2.5. Ex Situ Maturation of the Bioflocs

Bioflocs were matured in external tanks for 48 days prior to the experiment, using the same carbon sources, sucrose 41.30% C, chancaca 43.82% C, beet molasses 30.0% C, measured using a Brix refractometer (H&Co model BRIX 90, Tiaoyeer China) and replacing its value in the equation %C = (Brix * %C in glucose according to molecular weight * sample dilution factor), modified according to the method proposed by [29], following the method of Avnimelech [28]. Ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) and sodium nitrite (NaNO2) were added to stimulate biofloc formation, adapting the protocols of [27,30]. Initial concentrations were set at 3 mg·L−1 TAN (NH4Cl) and 2 mg·L−1 NO2− (NaNO2), repeated when TAN dropped below 3 mg·L−1 and NO2− reached 2 mg·L−1. Nitrogen and carbon inputs were halted when NO3− concentrations reached 20–30 mg·L−1. To enhance the surface area for biofilm development, 2 L of bioballs were added to each tank, increasing lateral surface area by 200% [31]. Subsequently, 20 L (25% of the effective tank volume) of inoculated biofloc from each maturation tank was added to the experimental tanks, corresponding to their respective carbon source.

2.6. Water Quality Parameters

The dissolved oxygen (DO, mg.L−1), temperature (°C), and pH were evaluated daily, measured by a probe (HACH, multiparameter—HQ40d, probe LDO101/PHC101, USA). The total ammonia nitrogen (N-TAN) (DH 9000 Spectrophotometer, HACH Nessler kit 21199449, 0–3.0 mg.L−1—2458200) and nitrite (N-NO2−) (DH 9000 Spectrophotometer, HACH kit 322107569) were measured every two days. Nitrate (N-NO3−) (DH 9000 Spectrophotometer, kit 2107169) and alkalinity (DH 9000 Spectrophotometer, HACH kit 2271900-LM) were monitored weekly.
Settleable solids (SS) were monitored by taking a 1000 mL sample of water from each experimental unit and placing it inside a series of Imhoff cones (Kartell®/1000 mL, Italy); the volume of floc that settled to the bottom of the cone was measured after 20 min and expressed in terms of mL.L−1 of SS [32]. Total suspended solids (TSS) were assessed using Method APA-160.2-Gravimetric dried at 103–105 °C [33]. For this procedure, a sample volume of water was taken from each tank, filtered with a 45μ Whatman paper filter (previously weighed); then, the filter plus the residue was weighed on an analytical balance. The amount of total suspended solids was calculated using the equation SST (mg/L) = (A − B) * 1000/sample volume (mL), where A = weight of the filter with residue; B = weight of the filter; and Vol (mL) = volume of the filtered sample.

2.7. Feed

The fish were fed with a balanced artificial feed for marine fish (47.5% CP, 19% lipids, 19.5 MJ kg.energy−1) twice a day (a.m. and p.m.) starting at a rate of 8% of the total biomass (kg). The feeding was adjusted according to the results of each biometric sampling.

2.8. Growth Performance

Every 15 days, biometric samplings were carried out in each tank in order to evaluate the growth performance of the fish using an ichthyometer to measure size (total length Lt) and an electronic balance (SNUG III-300, Jadever Precision Balance, China) with a capacity of 2000 g to estimate weight (g). A sample of 5 fish per tank was taken to perform the measurements.
The recorded data corresponding to weight, length, and feed supplied per experimental unit were used to estimate the following growth and productive parameters: weight gain (WG), using the equation WG = Wf – Wi, where Wf = final weight and Wi = initial weight; total length gain (TL), using the equation TL = Ltf – Lti, where Ltf = final total length and Lti = initial total length; average daily weight gain (AWG), where AWG = WG/experimental time; and thermal growth rate, defined as the percentage increase in fish weight/day, considering the temperature factor, by the equation GF3 = [(W2 (1/3) − W1 (1/3)/°D] * 1000, where W2 = final weight (g); W1 = initial weight (g); °D = degree days, being equal to the duration in days multiplied by the average temperature in the culture period; biomass (B), with B = number of animals x average weight (kg.m−3); Feed conversion rate or conversion factor (FCR), with FCR = Wt of feed supplied/Wt of animals produced; and survival (%), with S (%) = (final number of animals/initial number of animals) * 100.
In order to know the nutritional contribution of the bioflocs generated to the fish, biofloc samples were taken from the culture tanks, and the protein percentage was determined (MET-DPK-Q-01, based on AOAC 928.08 20th Edition 2016/ME-711.02.173, v-2), fat (g/100 g, method NCh3547:2018), ash (g/100 g, method MET-DC-Q-01, based on AOAC 923.03-20 20th Edition 2016/NCh 842.Of78), crude fiber (g/100 g, method MET-DFC-Q-1), available carbohydrates (g/100 g), and calories (Kcal/100 g) (method MET-DHCCAL-Q-01, based on FAO/INFOODS/Food Safety Regulations).

2.9. Statistical Analysis

Water quality data are presented as means ± standard deviation. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the effect of time on each water quality variable. Assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were tested using Shapiro–Wilk and Levene’s tests, respectively.
For growth parameters, one-way ANOVA was applied after verifying assumptions of normality (Shapiro–Wilk), homogeneity of variance (Bartlett), linearity, and independence of residuals. Where significant differences were found, Tukey’s test (p < 0.05) was used for multiple comparisons. Non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis tests were applied to variables that did not meet assumptions, even after transformation. All analyses were performed using RStudio (version 4.2.2, R Core Team, 2022).

3. Results

3.1. Water Quality Parameters

Dissolved oxygen (DO > 7.0 mg·L−1), pH (8.0–8.10), temperature (24 °C), and salinity (15 ppt) remained stable throughout the experimental period, showing no statistically significant differences among treatments (p > 0.05). A similar trend was observed in settleable solids (SS), with no significant variation among treatments (p > 0.05). Mean SS values ranged from 1.0 ± 1.99 mL·L−1 in the beet molasses treatment to 1.4 ± 1.44 mL·L−1 in the sucrose treatment. Total suspended solids (TSS) exhibited average values exceeding 100 mg·L−1 at the beginning of the culture period, followed by a gradual decline to 40–60 mg·L−1 towards the end of the trial in all treatments. These changes were not statistically significant among treatments (p > 0.05) (Figure 1). Alkalinity remained consistently above 150 mg·L−1, also without significant differences among groups (p > 0.05).
Regarding nitrogen compounds, no significant differences among treatments (p > 0.05) were observed for total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) and nitrate concentrations. TAN levels remained below 1.0 mg·L−1 in all treatments throughout the experimental period, with the highest value recorded in the beet molasses group on day 23 (0.80 ± 0.07 mg·L−1). Nitrate concentrations averaged above 7.00 mg·L−1, reaching up to 18.00 ± 2.28 mg·L−1 in the chancaca treatment by the end of the trial (Figure 1). In contrast, nitrite concentrations differed significantly among treatments (p < 0.05), with the highest mean value observed in the sucrose group (0.43 ± 0.05 mg·L−1). The maximum concentration recorded in this treatment was 1.65 ± 0.28 mg·L−1. However, from day 15 onward, nitrite levels declined to 0.10 ± 0.12 mg·L−1 (Table 1, Figure 2).

3.2. Growth Performance

Table 2 presents the mean values of growth performance parameters for juvenile M. cephalus. The chancaca treatment exhibited the lowest values for average final weight (6.99 ± 0.16 g), final length (7.76 ± 0.11 cm), weight gain (WG: 2.66 ± 0.16 g), total length gain (TL: 1.36 ± 0.10 cm), average daily weight gain (AWG: 0.05 ± 0.00 g), and thermal growth coefficient (GF3: 0.79 ± 0.04), all of which were significantly lower compared to the sucrose treatment (p < 0.05). The highest growth performance values were recorded in the sucrose group, with a WG of 4.26 ± 0.51 g, an AWG of 0.09 ± 0.01 g, and a GF3 of 1.27 ± 0.15 at a constant system temperature of 24 °C (Figure 3). The beet molasses group showed intermediate values and did not differ significantly from either sucrose or chancaca treatments for final weight (FW), WG, AWG, or GF3 (p > 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed among treatments for final biomass, survival rate, or feed conversion ratio (FCR) (p > 0.05).
The bromatological analysis revealed that crude protein content was lowest in the bioflocs formed using chancaca (5.1%) and significantly lower compared to those from the sucrose and beet molasses treatments, which did not differ significantly from each other (p < 0.05). These protein values were positively correlated with the energy content (Kcal/g), which also showed significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05). In contrast, no significant differences were found among treatments in ash, crude fiber, or fat content of the bioflocs (p > 0.05) (Table 3).

4. Discussion

Few studies have established the optimal water quality parameters for the culture and management of M. cephalus, although the species is known to tolerate broad variations in temperature, salinity, pH, alkalinity, and nitrogen compounds. This tolerance is associated with its estuarine habitat and migratory behavior [7]. Kibenge [34] reports an optimal temperature range for growth of 20–26 °C, while [35] specifically recommends 25 °C for culturing mullet in brackish waters. M. cephalus also tolerates a wide range of salinities (0 to >35 ppt) [6,36], with optimal growth reported in oligohaline to mesohaline waters (5–18 ppt) [25]. In the present study, both temperature and salinity remained within these recommended ranges, while dissolved oxygen levels remained above 7.0 mg·L−1—values consistent with the needs of the species [37,38] and those required in biofloc technology (BFT) systems [18,30].
Alkalinity plays a fundamental role in BFT systems, acting as a buffer for pH and supporting autotrophic nitrification. In this study, alkalinity ranged from 190.67 ± 19.08 to approximately 150 mg·L−1 CaCO3 during the culture period, with no significant differences among treatments. These values fall within the recommended range for both BFT management [39,40] and mullet culture [41,42,43,44].
Solids (SS and TSS) are key indicators of biofloc growth and, after dissolved oxygen, represent the second most critical limiting factor in BFT operation [45]. TSS levels in BFT systems typically remain below 1000 mg·L−1, averaging around 500 mg·L−1 [46], while SS levels are ideally maintained between 25 and 50 mL·L−1 [47]. In the present study, both SS and TSS concentrations were lower than those previously reported for M. cephalus in BFT systems [38,42,48,49], as well as for other fish species [50,51,52,53,54]. The decline in TSS and SS values over time may be attributed to fish grazing on bioflocs, as previously observed by [55], who confirmed that mullet can be used to regulate solid concentrations in shrimp BFT systems.
In this study, synthetic ammonium and nitrite were applied ex situ to simulate biofloc maturation conditions during the start-up phase. This strategy, commonly used to promote the establishment of microbial communities before stocking [56], helped prevent nitrogen fluctuations during the fish growth phase. Uawisetwathana et al. [57] also reported that ex situ biofloc supplementation in Litopenaeus vannamei cultures improved shrimp growth performance and nutritional quality, while significantly lowering concentrations of ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate in the rearing water. Following this ex situ formation, no further organic fertilization was applied, encouraging a transition from heterotrophic to autotrophic microbial communities dominated by nitrifying bacteria. Similar observations were reported by Sun et al. [58], who noted that this approach can reduce production costs and the need for solid removal systems, while supporting environmentally sustainable cultivation. These authors also reported declining TSS values over time, consistent with the trend observed in the present study, suggesting reduced biofloc formation in the absence of continued carbon supplementation.
Among the nitrogenous compounds monitored, only nitrite exhibited significant differences among treatments. The use of refined sucrose as a carbon source appeared to disrupt the nitrite-oxidizing bacterial community, resulting in nitrite accumulation in that treatment. Previous studies have shown that the chemical nature of the carbon source—particularly its degradability, solubility, and bioavailability—can influence nitrogen cycling dynamics and microbial structure in BFT systems [59,60]. Refined sucrose, being highly soluble and pure, is rapidly assimilated by bacteria, which may lead to imbalances in substrate availability. Combined with biofloc consumption by fish, this may have contributed to the elevated nitrite concentrations observed in this group.
The use of wild-caught M. cephalus juveniles in aquaculture has been widely documented, although their growth performance varies with culture conditions and management strategies (e.g., trophic ecology, migration, taxonomy, and genetics) [61,62,63,64]. Culture conditions—including extensive, semi-intensive, and closed or open systems, as well as polyculture, integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA), and BFT—also influence outcomes [38,41,65,66,67,68]. In the present study, M. cephalus juveniles adapted well to the BFT system, doubling their average initial weight in 45 days. Comparable results were reported by [49], who reared wild M. cephalus in BFT, achieving a final weight of 5.98 ± 0.08 g and a daily specific growth rate (SGR) of 3.15 ± 0.05%·day−1 after 60 days, starting from 0.91 ± 0.01 g juveniles. Elhetawy et al. [69] also reported significant weight gain (10.89 ± 0.12 g to 24.45 ± 0.05 g) over 70 days in BFT systems at varying salinities and dietary protein levels.
The biochemical composition of bioflocs is highly variable and influenced by factors such as the cultured species, stocking density, light exposure, aeration, and feeding behavior. However, the most critical determinant is the type of carbon source applied [15,18,70,71,72]. In this study, crude protein (CP) levels in bioflocs were below 10%, considerably lower than values commonly reported in the literature (25–50%) [15,40,73,74,75]. However, our results are comparable to those of [76], who reported CP values of 12.82–18.06% using sucrose and cane molasses in shrimp BFT systems over 72 days.
In the current study, refined sucrose yielded higher CP and caloric content in bioflocs than chancaca, likely due to differences in nitrogen compound profiles and solid dynamics. The chancaca treatment appeared to favor the nitrification pathway toward nitrate, leading to reduced microbial biomass. These findings are consistent with the observed growth parameters—particularly weight gain (WG) and average weight gain (AWG)—and with the nitrate accumulation noted at the end of the trial. The contribution of microbial protein formed in situ from nitrogen transformation is well recognized as an additional feed source in BFT systems [77]. The superior growth outcomes observed in the sucrose treatment—including higher final weight, length, WG, TL, AWG, and GF3—are likely associated with the improved nutritional quality of bioflocs in that group. Survival did not differ significantly among treatments (p > 0.05). Mortality in the beet molasses group may be associated with an ammonium peak (1.8 mg·L−1) on day 28, while the sole death in the sucrose group was due to a fish jumping out of the tank. According to the results obtained in this study, M. cephalus is a species that is easy to acclimatize and grows well under intensive cultivation conditions, such as BFT. The selection of carbon sources in BFT should consider their effects on water quality, cost, local availability, and their influence on the growth and survival of the cultured species. Although refined sucrose resulted in higher nitrite concentrations, it also generated more protein-rich bioflocs, reflected in improved growth performance. Nevertheless, the outcomes obtained with chancaca and beet molasses were largely similar across most variables. Therefore, market availability and cost-effectiveness may ultimately guide the selection of carbon sources.

5. Conclusions

Refined sucrose is readily available and accessible in most markets, and based on the present findings, we recommend its preferential use for ex situ biofloc maturation in M. cephalus BFT cultures. Furthermore, future studies should investigate the microbial community composition in bioflocs formed from different carbon sources to mitigate water quality fluctuations and enhance the nutritional value of bioflocs, ultimately improving the growth and sustainability of cultured species.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.E.A.G., M.H. and G.L.; methodology, J.E.A.G., M.H. and G.L.; data analysis, J.E.A.G., M.H. and G.L.; investigation, J.E.A.G., M.H. and G.L.; writing and preparation of the original draft, J.E.A.G. and G.L.; supervision, J.E.A.G.; project administration, M.H. and G.L.; acquisition of funding, G.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID) through the FONDEF IDEA I+D/ID21I10088 and by the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID)/DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/[21220131].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The methods used for the development of this study were approved by the ethics and biosafety committee of the Pontifical Catholic University of Valparaíso (CODE BIOPUCV-BA 465-2021).

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting the findings of this research will be available upon request.

Acknowledgments

The development of this study was made possible thanks to the collaboration of the School of Marine Sciences of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Chile, the Center for Research in Sustainable Aquaculture, CIAS and the Marine Biogeochemistry Laboratory. The authors would like to thank Sara Chavera Garcés, Zuhelen Valencia, and Juan Pablo Monsalve for their collaboration in the experimental phase.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Koven, W.; Gisbert, E.; Meiri-Ashkenazi, I.; Nixon, O.; Israeli, D.; Tandler, A.; Rosenfeld, H. The effect of weaning diet type on grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) juvenile performance during the trophic shift from carnivory to omnivory. Aquaculture 2020, 518, 734848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sunarni, S.M.; Wairara, S.; Sisca, E. Distribution patterns and abundance of mullet fish populations (Mugil sp.) estuary areas. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1899, 012019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jamabo, N.A.; Maduako, N.C. Food and feeding habits of Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus, 1758) in Elechi Creek, Niger Delta, Nigeria. Int. J. Fish. Aquac. 2015, 7, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lawson, E.O.; Jimoh, A.A. Aspects of the biology of grey mullet (Mugil cephalus), in Lagos lagoon, Nigeria. Aquac. Aquar. Conserv. Legis. 2010, 3, 181–193. Available online: http://www.bioflux.com.ro/docs/2010.3.181-193.pdf?AdobeSystemsPDFv17=2e5f561ee1c0e839b1bc776aeffd9df47cfb381c (accessed on 26 November 2024).
  5. Bhakta, D.; Das, B.K.; Kamble, S.P.; Solanki, S.; Solanki, J.K.; Sahoo, A.K.; Samanta, S. Reproductive biology of estuarine migrants (Mugil cephalus) from Narmada estuary, west coast of India. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2024, 70, 103371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Trape, S.; Durand, J.; Guilhaumon, F.; Vigliola, L.; Panfili, J. Recruitment patterns of young-of-the-year mugilid fishes in a West African estuary impacted by climate change. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2009, 85, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Whitfield, A.K.; Panfili, J.; Durand, J.D. A global review of the cosmopolitan flathead mullet Mugil cephalus Linnaeus 1758 (Teleostei: Mugilidae), with emphasis on the biology, genetics, ecology and fisheries aspects of this apparent species complex. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2012, 22, 641–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ahammed, M.B.; Momin, A.; Sultana, S.; Sarkar, A. pH and Temperature Monitoring with a GSM-based Auto Feeding System of a Biofloc Technology. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2022, 13, 270–274. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anirban-Sarkar-25/publication/360053559 (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  9. Crab, R.; Chielens, B.; Wille, M.; Bossier, P.; Verstraete, W. The effect of different carbon sources on the nutritional value of bioflocs, a feed for Macrobrachium rosenbergii postlarvae. Aquac. Res. 2010, 41, 559–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ahmed, N.; Thompson, S.; Glaser, M. Global aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and climate change adaptability. Environ. Manag. 2019, 63, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Servicio Nacional de Pesca y Acuicultura. Anuario Estadístico de Pesca y Acuicultura; Servicio Nacional de Pesca y Acuicultura SERNAPESCA: Victoria, Chile, 2024; Available online: http://www.sernapesca.cl/informacion-utilidad/anuarios-estadisticos-de-pesca-y-acuicultura (accessed on 13 January 2025).
  12. Souza, D.; Suita, S.; Romano, L.; Wasielesky, W., Jr.; Ballester, E. Use of molasses as a carbon source during the nursery rearing of Farfantepenaeus brasiliensis (Latreille, 1817) in a Biofloc technology system. Aquaculture 2014, 45, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mansour, A.; Esteban, M. Effects of carbon sources and plant protein levels in a biofloc system on growth performance, and the immune and antioxidant status of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Fish Shellfish. Immunol. 2017, 64, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. El-Hawarry, W.; Shourbela, R.; Haraz, Y.; Khatab, S.; Dawood, M. The influence of carbon source on growth, feed efficiency, and growth-related genes in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) reared under biofloc conditions and high stocking density. Aquaculture 2021, 542, 736919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Khanjani, M.; Alizadeh, M.; Mohammadi, M.; Sarsangi Aliabad, H. The effect of adding molasses in different times on performance of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) raised in a low-salinity biofloc system. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2021, 21, 1435–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Khanjani, M.; Sharifinia, M. Biofloc technology with addition molasses as carbon sources applied to Litopenaeus vannamei juvenile production under the effects of different C/N ratios. Aquac. Int. 2022, 30, 383–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Soliman, A.; Abdel-Tawwab, M. Effects of different carbon sources on water quality, biofloc quality, and the productivity of Nile tilapia reared in biofloc-based ponds. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2022, 22, 1281–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mansour, A.; Ashry, O.; Ashour, M.; Alsaqufi, A.; Ramadan, K.; Sharawy, Z. The optimization of dietary protein level and carbon sources on biofloc nutritive values, bacterial abundance, and growth performances of whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) juveniles. Life 2022, 12, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Huang, H.; Li, C.; Lei, Y.; Kuang, W.; Zou, W.; Yang, P. Bacterial composition and inferring function profiles in the biofloc system rearing Litopenaeus vannamei postlarvae at a low salinity. Isr. J. Aquac. Bamidgeh 2022, 74, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khanjani, M.H.; Sharifinia, M.; Hajirezaee, S. Recent progress towards the application of biofloc technology for tilapia farming. Aquaculture 2022, 552, 738021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mugwanya, M.; Dawood, M.; Kimera, F.; Sewilam, H. Biofloc Systems for Sustainable Production of Economically Important Aquatic Species: A Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xu, W.; Xu, Y.; Su, H.; Hu, X.; Yang, K.; Wen, G.; Cao, Y. Characteristics of ammonia removal and nitrifying microbial communities in a hybrid biofloc-RAS for intensive Litopenaeus vannamei culture: A pilot-scale study. Water 2020, 12, 3000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ponce-Palafox, J.T.; Pavia, Á.A.; López, D.G.M.; Arredondo-Figueroa, J.L.; Lango-Reynoso, F.; Castañeda-Chávez, M.d.R.; Esparza-Leal, H.; Ruiz-Luna, A.; Páez-Ozuna, F.; Castillo-Vargasmachuca, S.G. Response surface analysis of temperature-salinity interaction effects on water quality, growth and survival of shrimp Penaeus vannamei postlarvae raised in biofloc intensive nursery production. Aquaculture 2019, 503, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Esparza-Leal, H.; Amaral-Xavier, J.; Wasielesky, W. Performance of Litopenaeus vannamei postlarvae reared in indoor nursery tanks under biofloc conditions at different salinities and zero-water exchange. Aquac. Int. 2016, 24, 1435–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ray, A.; Lotz, J. Comparing salinities of 10, 20, and 30% in intensive, commercial-scale biofloc shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) production systems. Aquaculture 2017, 476, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cardona, L. Habitat selection by grey mullets (Osteichthytes: Mugilidae) in Mediterranean estuaries: The role of salinity. Sci. Mar. 2006, 70, 443–455. Available online: https://scientiamarina.revistas.csic.es/index.php/scientiamarina/article/view/96/93 (accessed on 26 November 2024). [CrossRef]
  27. Souza, J.; Cardozo, A.; Wasielesky, W., Jr.; Abreu, P. Does the biofloc size matter to the nitrification process in Biofloc Technology (BFT) Systems? Aquaculture 2019, 500, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ferreira, G.; Silva, V.; Martins, M.; Da Silva, A.C.; Machado, C.; Seiffert, W.; Do Nascimento-Vieira, F. Strategies for ammonium and nitrite control in Litopenaeus vannamei nursery systems with bioflocs. Aquac. Eng. 2020, 88, 102040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Avnimelech, Y. Carbon/nitrogen ratio as a control element in aquaculture systems. Aquaculture 1999, 176, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dongare, M.L.; Buchade, P.B.; Awatade, M.N.; Shaligram, A.D. Mathematical modeling and simulation of refractive index based Brix measurement system. Optik 2014, 125, 946–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ayazo-Genes, J.; Pertúz-Buelvas, V.; Espinosa-Araujo, J.; Jiménez-Velásquez, C.; Atencio-García, V.; Prieto-Guevara, M. Desempeño de bocachico (Prochilodus magdalenae) en sistemas intensivos de producción con tecnología biofloc. Biotecnol. Sect. Agropecu. Agroindustrial 2018, 16, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lara, G.; Poersch, L.; Wasielesky, W., Jr. The quantity of artificial substrates influences the nitrogen cycle in the biofloc culture system of Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquac. Eng. 2021, 94, 102171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Avnimelech, Y. Feeding with microbial flocs by tilapia in minimal discharge bio-flocs technology ponds. Aquaculture 2007, 264, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. APHA (American Public Health Association). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed; APHA (American Public Health Association): Washington, DC, USA, 2016; p. 1546. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kibenge, F.S.B. Descriptions of major farmed aquatic animal species. In Aquaculture Pathophysiology; Frederick, S.B., Kibenge, B.B., Roger, S.M.C., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2022; Volume 1, pp. 1–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Prakoso, V.A.; Kim, K.T.; Ryu, J.H.; Min, B.H.; Chang, Y.J. Oxygen consumption of Mugil cephalus on several temperatures under brackish water conditions. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 278, 012060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Whitfield, A.K.; Taylor, R.H.; Fox, C.; Cyrus, D.P. Fishes and salinities in the St Lucia system—A review. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2006, 6, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Borges, B.A.A.; Rocha, J.L.; Pinto, P.H.O.; Zacheu, T.; Chede, A.C.; Magnotti, C.C.F.; Arana, L.A.V. Integrated culture of white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) and mullet (Mugil liza) on biofloc technology: Zootechnical performance, sludge generation, and Vibrio spp. reduction. Aquaculture 2020, 524, 735234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Garcés, S.; Lara, G. Applying Biofloc Technology in the Culture of Mugil cephalus in Subtropical Conditions: Effects on Water Quality and Growth Parameters. Fishes 2023, 8, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ebeling, J.; Timmons, M.; Bisogni, J. Engineering analysis of the stoichiometry of photoautotrophic, autotrophic, and heterotrophic removal of ammonia–nitrogen in aquaculture systems. Aquaculture 2006, 257, 346–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Emerenciano, M.; Martínez-Córdova, L.; Martínez-Porchas, M.; Miranda-Baeza, A. Biofloc Technology (BFT): A Tool for Water Quality Management in Aquaculture. Water Qual. 2017, 5, 92–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Biswas, G.; De, D.; Thirunavukkarasu, A.; Natarajan, M.; Sundaray, J.; Kailasam, M.; Sarkar, A. Effects of stocking density, feeding, fertilization and combined fertilization-feeding on the performances of striped grey mullet (Mugil cephalus L.) fingerlings in brackishwater pond rearing systems. Aquaculture 2012, 338, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hoang, M.N.; Nguyen, P.N.; Bossier, P. Water quality, animal performance, nutrient budgets and microbial community in the biofloc-based polyculture system of white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) and gray mullet (Mugil cephalus). Aquaculture 2020, 515, 734610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Legarda, E.C.; Aranha Martins, M.; Moreira Pereira, P.K.; Siqueira Carneiro, R.F.; Pinheiro, I.C.; Seiffert, W.Q.; Vieira, F.D.N. Shrimp rearing in biofloc integrated with different mullet stocking densities. Aquac. Res. 2020, 51, 3571–3581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Legarda, E.C.; da Silva, D.; Miranda, C.S.; Pereira, P.K.M.; Martins, M.A.; Machado, C.; do Nascimento Vieira, F. Sea lettuce integrated with Pacific white shrimp and mullet cultivation in biofloc impact system performance and the sea lettuce nutritional composition. Aquaculture 2021, 534, 736265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. El-Sayed, A. Use of biofloc technology in shrimp aquaculture: A comprehensive review, with emphasis on the last decade. Rev. Aquac. 2021, 13, 676–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Soaudy, M.R.; Ghonimy, A.; Greco, L.S.L.; Chen, Z.; Dyzenchauz, A.; Li, J. Total suspended solids and their impact in a biofloc system: Current and potentially new management strategies. Aquaculture 2023, 572, 739524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hargreaves, J.A. Biofloc Production Systems for Aquaculture; Southern Regional Aquaculture Center: Stoneville, MS, USA, 2013; Volume 4503, pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  49. Vinatea, L.; Malpartida, J.; Carbó, R.; Andree, K.B.; Gisbert, E.; Estevez, A. A comparison of recirculation aquaculture systems versus biofloc technology culture system for on-growing of fry of Tinca (Cyprinidae) and fry of grey Mugil cephalus (Mugilidae). Aquaculture 2018, 482, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Haridas, H.; Chadha, N.K.; Sawant, P.B.; Deo, A.D.; Ande, M.P.; Syamala, K.; Lingam, S.S. Different carbon sources influences the growth and digestive enzyme activity of grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) in biofloc based nursery rearing system. J. Environ. Biol. 2021, 42, 1249–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dauda, A.B.; Romano, N.; Ebrahimi, M.; Karim, M.; Natrah, I.; Kamarudin, M.S.; Ekasari, J. Different carbon sources affects biofloc volume, water quality and the survival and physiology of African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) fingerlings reared in an intensive biofloc technology system. Fish. Sci. 2017, 83, 1037–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Panigrahi, A.; Saranya, C.; Ambiganandam, K.; Sundaram, M.; Sivakumar, M.R. Evaluation of biofloc generation protocols to adopt high density nursery rearing of Penaeus vannamei for better growth performances, protective responses and immuno modulation in biofloc based technology. Aquaculture 2020, 522, 735095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Xu, W.; Xu, Y.; Su, H.; Hu, X.; Xu, Y.; Li, Z.; Cao, Y. Production performance, inorganic nitrogen control and bacterial community characteristics in a controlled biofloc-based system for indoor and outdoor super-intensive culture of Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture 2021, 531, 735749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mohammadi, G.; Rafiee, G.; Tavabe, K.R.; Abdel-Latif, H.M.; Dawood, M.A. The enrichment of diet with beneficial bacteria (single-or multi-strain) in biofloc system enhanced the water quality, growth performance, immune responses, and disease resistance of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquaculture 2021, 539, 736640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Aboseif, A.M.; Flefil, N.S.; Taha, M.K.; Tahoun, U.M.; Mola, H.R.A.; El-Haroun, E.; Goda, A.M.A. Influence of dietary C: N: P ratios on Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) growth performance and formation of water biotic communities within a biofloc system containment. Aquac. Rep. 2022, 24, 101136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Holanda, M.; Santana, G.; Furtado, P.; Rodrigues, R.V.; Cerqueira, V.R.; Sampaio, L.A.; Wasielesky, W., Jr.; Poersch, L.H. Evidence of total suspended solids control by Mugil liza reared in an integrated system with pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei using biofloc technology. Aquac. Rep. 2020, 18, 100479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lara, G.; Furtado, P.S.; Hostins, B.; Poersch, L.; Wasielesky, W., Jr. Addition of sodium nitrite and biofilm in a Litopenaeus vannamei biofloc culture system. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 2015, 44, 760–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Uawisetwathana, U.; Situmorang, M.L.; Arayamethakorn, S.; Haniswita Suantika, G.; Panya, A.; Rungrassamee, W. Supplementation of ex-situ biofloc to improve growth performance and enhance nutritional values of the Pacific white shrimp rearing at low salinity conditions. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sun, Y.; Zhang, J.; Dong, D.; Li, M.; Yang, X.; Song, X.; Li, X. Effects of carbon source addition strategies on water quality, growth performance, and microbial community in shrimp BFT aquaculture systems. Aquaculture 2024, 578, 740027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Abakari, G.; Luo, G.; Kombat, E.O.; Alhassan, E.H. Supplemental carbon sources applied in biofloc technology aquaculture systems: Types, effects and future research. Rev. Aquac. 2021, 13, 1193–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wu, J.; Xu, W.; Xu, Y.; Su, H.; Hu, X.; Cao, Y.; Wen, G. Impact of organic carbons addition on the enrichment culture of nitrifying biofloc from aquaculture water: Process, efficiency, and microbial community. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Durand, J.D.; Shen, K.N.; Chen, W.J.; Jamandre, B.W.; Blel, H.; Diop, K.; Borsa, P. Systematics of the grey mullets (Teleostei: Mugiliformes: Mugilidae): Molecular phylogenetic evidence challenges two centuries of morphology-based taxonomy. Mol. Phylogenetics Evol. 2012, 64, 73–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Parrino, V.; Cappello, T.; Costa, G.; Cannavà, C.; Sanfilippo, M.; Fazio, F.; Fasulo, S. Comparative study of haematology of two teleost fish (Mugil cephalus and Carassius auratus) from different environments and feeding habits. Eur. Zool. J. 2018, 85, 193–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Talukdar, A.; Deo, A.D.; Sahu, N.P.; Sardar, P.; Aklakur, M.; Prakash, S.; Shamna, N.; Kumar, S. Effects of dietary protein on growth performance, nutrient utilization, digestive enzymes and physiological status of grey mullet, (Mugil cephalus L). fingerlings reared in inland saline water. Aquac. Nutr. 2020, 26, 921–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bensaâd-Bendjedid, L.; Tahri, M.; Mokrani, A.; Mounira, R. Growth, mortality and exploitation level of (Mugil cephalus) (Linnaeus, 1758) in El Mellah Lagoon (Algeria). Egypt. J. Aquat. Biol. 2022, 26, 1381–1393. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363147860_Growth_mortality_and_exploitation_level_of_Mugil_cephalus_Linnaeus_1758_in_El_Mellah_Lagoon_Algeria (accessed on 13 January 2025). [CrossRef]
  66. Hoang, M.; Nguyen, P.; Le, D.; Nguyen, D.; Bossier, P. Effects of stocking density of gray mullet (Mugil cephalus) on water quality, growth performance, nutrient conversion rate, and microbial community structure in the white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) integrated system. Aquaculture 2018, 496, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gisbert, E.; Mozanzadeh, M.T.; Kotzamanis, Y.; Estévez, A. Weaning wild flathead grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) fry with diets with different levels of fish meal substitution. Aquaculture 2016, 462, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mehrim, A.; Refaey, M.; Khalil, F.; Shaban, Z. Impact of Mono- and Polyculture Systems on Growth Performance, Feed Utilization, and Economic Efficiency of Oreochromis niloticus, Mugil cephalus, and Mugil capito. J. Anim. Poult. Prod. 2018, 9, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Biswas, G.; Kumar, P.; Ghoshal, T.K.; Kailasam, M.; De, D.; Bera, A.; Mandal, B.; Sukumaran, K.; Vijayan, K.K. Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) outperforms conventional polyculture with respect to environmental remediation, productivity and economic return in brackish water ponds. Aquaculture 2020, 516, 734626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Elhetawy, A.I.; El-Dahhar, A.A.; Elebiary, E.H.; Abo El-Wafa, M.A.; Lotfy, A.M.; Emelianova, N. Effect of biofloc system at different salinities and crude protein levels on water quality, growth performance, and survival rate of flathead grey mullet (Mugil Cephalus). Egypt. J. Aquac. 2021, 11, 41–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Magana-Gallegos, E.; Gonzalez-Zuniga, R.; Arevalo, M.; Cuzon, G.; Chan-Vivas, E.; Lopez-Aguiar, K.; Gaxiola, G. Biofloc and food contribution to grow out and broodstock of Farfantepenaeus brasiliensis (Latreille, 1817) determined by stable isotopes and fatty acids. Aquac. Res. 2018, 49, 1782–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dauda, A.B. Biofloc technology: A review on the microbial interactions, operational parameters and implications to disease and health management of cultured aquatic animals. Rev. Aquac. 2020, 12, 1193–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Debnath, S.; Ahmed, M.U.; Parvez, M.S.; Karmokar, A.K.; Ahsan, M.N. Effect of stocking density on growth performance and body composition of climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) in biofloc system. Aquac. Int. 2022, 30, 1089–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ekasari, J.; Angela, D.; Waluyo, S.; Bachtiar, T.; Surawidjaja, E.; Bossier, P.; De Schryver, P. The size of biofloc determines the nutritional composition and the nitrogen recovery by aquaculture animals. Aquaculture 2014, 426, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Becerril-Cortés, D.; Monroy-Dosta, M.; Coelho-Emerenciano, M.; Castro-Mejía, G.; Cienfuegos-Martínez, K.; Lara-Andrade, D. Nutritional importance for aquaculture and ecological function of microorganisms that make up Biofloc, a review. Int. J. Aquat. Sci. 2017, 8, 69–77. [Google Scholar]
  76. Castro, L.; Pinto, R.; Nunes, A. Nutrient value and contribution of microbial floc to the growth performance of juvenile shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei), fed fatty acid and amino acid restrained diets under a zero-water exchange intensive system. Aquaculture 2021, 531, 735789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Abakari, G.; Wu, X.; He, X.; Fan, L.; Luo, G. Bacteria in biofloc technology aquaculture systems: Roles and mediating factors. Rev. Aquac. 2022, 14, 1260–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fishes 10 00427 g001
Figure 1. Variation in (a) Settleable solids (SS, mL.L−1) and (b) Total suspended solids (TSS, mg.L−1) during the culture of M. cephalus in the BFT system using different sources of organic carbon: chancaca, sucrose and beet molasses.
Figure 1. Variation in (a) Settleable solids (SS, mL.L−1) and (b) Total suspended solids (TSS, mg.L−1) during the culture of M. cephalus in the BFT system using different sources of organic carbon: chancaca, sucrose and beet molasses.
Fishes 10 00427 g001
Fishes 10 00427 g002
Figure 2. Fluctuations of nitrogen compounds: (a) Total ammonia nitrogen (N-TAN), (b) Nitrite (N-NO2−) and (c) Nitrate (N-NO3−) during the culture of M. cephalus in the BFT system using different sources of organic carbon: chancaca, sucrose, and beet molasses.
Figure 2. Fluctuations of nitrogen compounds: (a) Total ammonia nitrogen (N-TAN), (b) Nitrite (N-NO2−) and (c) Nitrate (N-NO3−) during the culture of M. cephalus in the BFT system using different sources of organic carbon: chancaca, sucrose, and beet molasses.
Fishes 10 00427 g002
Fishes 10 00427 g003
Figure 3. Variation of average weight (g) during the culture period of juveniles of M. cephalus using different sources of organic carbon (chancaca, sugar and beet molasses) for 45 days.
Figure 3. Variation of average weight (g) during the culture period of juveniles of M. cephalus using different sources of organic carbon (chancaca, sugar and beet molasses) for 45 days.
Fishes 10 00427 g003
Table 1. Average, maximum and minimum values of nitrogen compounds during the culture of M. cephalus in the BFT system using different sources of organic carbon: chancaca, sucrose and beet molasses.
Table 1. Average, maximum and minimum values of nitrogen compounds during the culture of M. cephalus in the BFT system using different sources of organic carbon: chancaca, sucrose and beet molasses.
Nitrogen CompoundsAverageMaximumMinimum *
Total ammonia nitrogen (N-TAN)
Chancaca0.39 ± 0.250.950.00 *–0.03 **
Sucrose0.37 ± 0.230.850.00 *–0.12 **
Beet molasses0.37 ± 0.250.830.00 *–0.03 **
Nitrite (mg·L−1 N-NO2−)
Chancaca0.17 ± 0.24 b0.800.00 *–0.020 **
Sucrose0.43 ± 0.43 a1.650.00 *–0.037 **
Beet molasses0.28 ± 0.28 ab1.170.00 *–0.030 **
Nitrate (mg·L−1 N-NO3−)
Chancaca10.20 ± 8.4330.100.00 *–0.60 **
Sucrose8.00 ± 5.1918.400.00 *–0.15 **
Beet molasses7.04 ± 5.2422.200.00 *–0.70 **
Different letters in the same column indicate significant statistical differences among treatments (p < 0.05). * Value recorded on day zero of the culture period. ** Minimum value recorded between days 8 and 45 of culture.
Table 2. Mean values of growth parameters of M. cephalus reared in the BFT system using three sources of organic carbon: chancaca, sucrose and beet molasses. Experimental time: 45 days.
Table 2. Mean values of growth parameters of M. cephalus reared in the BFT system using three sources of organic carbon: chancaca, sucrose and beet molasses. Experimental time: 45 days.
Growth ParametersChancacaSucroseBeet Molasses
Initial weight (g)4.33 ± 2.094.33 ± 2.094.33 ± 2.09
Initial length (cm)6.40 ± 1.156.40 ± 1.156.40 ± 1.15
Final average weight (g)6.99 ± 0.16 b8.59 ± 0.51 a8.15 ± 0.77 ab
Final average length (cm)7.76 ± 0.11 b8.21 ± 0.12 a8.20 ± 0.09 a
WG (g)2.66 ± 0.16 b4.26 ± 0.51 a3.82 ± 0.77 ab
TL (cm)1.36 ± 0.10 b1.81 ± 0.11 a1.80 ± 0.08 a
AWG (g)0.05 ± 0.00 b0.09 ± 0.01 a0.08 ± 0.01 ab
GF30.79 ± 0.04 b1.27 ± 0.15 a1.14 ± 0.23 ab
Initial biomass (kg/m3)0.03 ± 0.010.03 ± 0.010.03 ± 0.01
Final biomass (kg/m3)0.05 ± 0.000.06 ± 0.010.05 ± 0.01
FCR2.40 ± 0.002.33 ± 0.232.73 ± 0.92
%S *100.0 ± 0.0095.3 ± 8.0890.3 ± 16.74
Different letters in the same row indicate significant statistical differences among treatments (p < 0.05). WG, weight gain; TL, total length gain; AWG, average daily weight gain; GF3, thermal growth rate; FCR, feed conversion rate or conversion factor; %S, survival * average value between treatments.
Table 3. Bromatological composition of the biofloc generated during the culture period of juveniles of M. cephalus using different sources of organic carbon (chancaca, sucrose and beet molasses) for 45 days. Crude protein (%CP), Crude fiber (%CF).
Table 3. Bromatological composition of the biofloc generated during the culture period of juveniles of M. cephalus using different sources of organic carbon (chancaca, sucrose and beet molasses) for 45 days. Crude protein (%CP), Crude fiber (%CF).
CompositionChancacaSucroseBeet Molasses
%CP5.1 ± 0.01 b8.2 ± 0.01 a10.2 ± 0.02 a
%Ash25.6 ± 0.0125.6 ± 0.0127.6 ± 0.02
%CF10.1 ± 0.0110.8 ± 0.018.8 ± 0.02
%Fat5.0 ± 0.015.0 ± 0.015.0 ± 0.01
Kcal *0.3 ± 0.2 c3.44 ± 0.2 a2.46 ± 0.2 b
Different letters in the same row indicate a significant statistical difference between the evaluated treatments (p < 0.05). * Data based on g/100 g.
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

Ayazo Genes, J.E.; Holanda, M.; Lara, G. Effects of Different Organic Carbon Sources on Water Quality and Growth of Mugil cephalus Cultured in Biofloc Technology Systems. Fishes 2025, 10, 427. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10090427

AMA Style

Ayazo Genes JE, Holanda M, Lara G. Effects of Different Organic Carbon Sources on Water Quality and Growth of Mugil cephalus Cultured in Biofloc Technology Systems. Fishes. 2025; 10(9):427. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10090427

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ayazo Genes, Julia Eva, Mariana Holanda, and Gabriele Lara. 2025. "Effects of Different Organic Carbon Sources on Water Quality and Growth of Mugil cephalus Cultured in Biofloc Technology Systems" Fishes 10, no. 9: 427. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10090427

APA Style

Ayazo Genes, J. E., Holanda, M., & Lara, G. (2025). Effects of Different Organic Carbon Sources on Water Quality and Growth of Mugil cephalus Cultured in Biofloc Technology Systems. Fishes, 10(9), 427. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10090427

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop