MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1847324618 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n11p254

Investigation of Bacteria and Fish Pathogenic Bacteria Found in Freshwater Aquaponic System

2015· article· en· W1847324618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chanagun Chitmanat, Tipsukhon Pimpimol, Prachuab Chaibu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInnovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council of Thailand
KeywordsCatfishAquaponicsBiologyBacteriaTemperature gradient gel electrophoresisStockingFish farmingAquacultureFish <Actinopterygii>Veterinary medicineAnimal scienceFood science16S ribosomal RNAMicrobiologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacteria are very vital organisms in aquaponic system decomposing and converting the toxic components of the fish waste into usable vegetable nutrients; however, some unwanted bacteria could cause fish diseases. The purposes of this research were to compare the amount of bacteria in water from aquaponic catfish cultured in different stocking densities and Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis (DGGE) of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-amplified 16S rDNA was applied to characterise the bacterial populations. Three different stocking densities; 80, 100 and 120 fish/m2 of hybrid catfish were cultured in aquaponic system. Each treatment contained 3 replications; Treatment 1, 360 catfish (80 fish/m2, without lettuce); Treatment 2, 360 catfish (80 fish/m2, without lettuce); Treatment 3, 450 catfish (100 fish/m2); and treatment 4, 540 catfish (120 fish/m2). This research was conducted for 4 months. Water was sampled two times before fish stocking, it was found that the number of bacteria in the first week were higher than the third week. The average number of bacteria in water from treatment 1, 2, 3 and 4 were (2.49 ± 0.40) ×107, (2.43 ± 0.23) ×107, (2.48 ± 2.22) ×107 and (2.29 ± 2.38) ×107 Colonies forming unit (CFU)/ml respectively. According to four-time samplings after catfish were stocked, the average number of bacteria in water from treatment 1, 2, 3 and 4 were (1.85 ± 0.53) ×107, (2.73 ± 0.15) ×107, (2.45 ± 0.30) ×107 and (2.24 ± 0.19) ×107 CFU/ml respectively. The average number of bacteria in water after lettuce harvest from treatment 1, 2, 3 and 4 were (0.185 ± 0.04) ×107, (0.26 ± 0.04) ×107, (0.30 ± 0.01) ×107 and (0.29 ± 0.05) ×107 CFU/ml respectively. There were no differences in bacterial counts among treatments (p > 0.05). In addition, no significant difference was observed in the number of bacteria in filter tanks (p > 0.05) and the number were quite similar to the ones in catfish tanks. Aeromonas hydrophila and Flavobacterium columnare infected catfish at the beginning of the experiment; however, it got better and no more death found after acclimation. The DGGE analysis of PCR-amplified 16S rDNA fragments revealed that bacterial populations in water were dominated by Aeromonas spp., Pseudomonas spp. and Staphylococcus spp. Antibiotic sensitivity test indicated that enrofloxacin might be the best option for bacterial infection treatment. The results indicate that aquaponic system could reduce the wastewater from catfish culture; however, maintaining a good water quality environment for fish culture should take into account.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicInnovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics SystemsFrench-language works237,207