Effect of oral sarafloxacin dose and dose duration on edwardsiella ictaluri-infected channel catfish
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1-1-1992
Abstract
An oral dose titration was conducted to assess the efficacy of sarafloxacin-hydro-chloride (Sarafin®) against Edwardsiella ictaluri infections in channel catfish. Doses of 0, 2, 6, 10, and 14 mg sarafloxacin/’kg of fish were administered for 5 or 10 d in feed given at a rate of 2% of total fish weight. Mean percent mortalities at the end of the 5-d trial of the different sarafloxacin doses were as follows: 0 mg/kg, 86.1%; 2 mg/kg, 55.6%; 6 mg/kg, 44.4%; 10 mg/kg, 5.6%; and 14 mg/kg, 2.8%. After the 10-d trial doses, the mean percent mortalities were as follows: 0 mg/kg, 75.0%; 2 mg/kg, 71.5%; 6 mg/kg, 47.2%; 10 mg/kg, 0.0%; and 14 mg/kg, 2.8%. Analysis of variance indicated no significant difference in efficacy between the 5- and 10-d treatments. Pairwise comparison of the combined 5- and 10-d dose responses indicated that the sarafloxacin treatment at 2 mg/kg was not significantly different from no sarafloxacin treatment, but that the sarafloxacin dose of 6 mg/kg was significantly more effective (P < 0.01) than no sarafloxacin. Furthermore, the doses of 10 and 14 mg/kg were significantly more effective (P < 0.01) than the doses of 0, 2, and 6 mg/kg but were not significantly different from each other. Fifteen days after completion of the 10-d treatment, when survivors were analyzed, incidence of carriers was almost twice as great in groups that had received a 5-d treatment than in those that had received a 10-d treatment. However, low survival in the challenged groups that had received the lower doses precluded statistical analysis of the data. © by the American Fisheries Society 1992.
Publication Source (Journal or Book title)
Journal of Aquatic Animal Health
First Page
252
Last Page
256
Recommended Citation
Thune, R., & Johnson, M. (1992). Effect of oral sarafloxacin dose and dose duration on edwardsiella ictaluri-infected channel catfish. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, 4 (4), 252-256. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8667(1992)004<0252:EOOSDA>2.3.CO;2