|
|
利用中草药复方治疗棘胸蛙皮肤病的试验研究
|
Abstract:
本文应用中草药复方剂–石蛙康治疗棘胸蛙皮肤病(包括烂皮病和红腿病)，并与3种抗生素类药物(氟本尼考粉剂、盐酸多西环素和盐酸环丙沙星)的治疗进行了比较试验。试验结果表明，石蛙康治疗组和3种抗生素(氟本尼考粉和盐酸多西环素粉和盐酸环丙沙星)治疗组中患病棘胸蛙的死亡率均极显著低于感染对照组(P < 0.01)；石蛙康组棘胸蛙病蛙的治愈率均显著高于3种抗生素组(氟本尼考、盐酸多西环素和盐酸环丙沙星组) (P < 0.05)，石蛙康治疗棘胸蛙的红腿病治愈率为91.46%、烂皮病治愈率93.32%；试验结果还表明，在棘胸蛙治疗期间，石蛙康组的棘胸蛙增重率达到健康棘胸蛙增重率的93%以上，而抗生素治疗组的棘胸蛙增重率仅为健康棘胸蛙增重率的70%；因此中草药复方–石蛙康对棘胸蛙皮肤病的治疗效果显著优于抗生素治疗效果。
Chinese herb compound agent-SWK was used to treat the skin diseases (including putrid-skin disease and red-leg disease) of Chinese spiny frog Quasipaa spinosa in this paper, and using 3 kinds of antibiotics (Florfenicol, Doxycycline Hydrochloride and Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride) for comparing the curative effect. The results showed that, the mortality rate of diseased Chinese spiny frog Quasipaa spinosa in SWK group and 3 kinds of antibiotics (Florfenicol, Doxycycline Hydrochloride and Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride) groups were significantly lower than in CK group (P < 0.01). The cure rate of diseased Chinese spiny frog Quasipaa spinosa in SWK group was significantly higher than in 3 kinds of antibiotics (Florfenicol, Doxycycline Hydrochloride and Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride) groups (P < 0.05). The cure rate of red-leg disease of Quasipaa spinosa was 91.43% in SWK group, the cure rate of putrid-skin disease of Quasipaa spinosa was 93.32% in SWK group. the results also showed that, the weight gain rate of diseased Quasipaa spinosa in SWK group duration of therapy was 93% of the weight gain rate of health Quasipaa spinosa, the weight gain rate of diseased Quasipaa spinosa in 3 kinds of antibiotics (Florfenicol, Doxycycline Hydrochloride and Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride) groups duration of therapy was only 70% of the weight gain rate of health Quasipaa spinosa, so, the Chinese herb compound agent-SWK was significantly better medicine than antibiotics for curing skin diseases of Quasipaa spinosa frog.
| [1] | 钱名全. 棘胸蛙[J]. 湖南农业, 2004(3): 19. |
| [2] | 陈国英, 凌跃进. 经济蛙类的高效养殖[M]. 合肥: 安徽科学技术出版社, 1995. |
| [3] | 汪溥钦, 汪彦惜. 棘胸蛙的寄生蠕虫[J]. 福建师范大学学报(自然科学版), 1989(2): 75-81. |
| [4] | 陈世濂, 张艳漩, 刘浩官. 棘胸蛙病害因子的调查与分析[J]. 动物学杂志, 1995(3): 9-12. |
| [5] | 杨丽华. 棘胸蛙的病害防治[J]. 渔业致富指南, 2001(15): 49. |
| [6] | 苏雪红, 张正江, 纪任宗, 等. 棘胸蛙病害调查及药敏试验初报[J]. 福建水产, 2001(1): 32-37. |
| [7] | 苏雪红, 张正江, 纪任实, 等. 棘胸蛙病害调查及药物敏感试验初报[J]. 内陆水产, 2002, 27(7): 28-29. |
| [8] | 李贵雄. 棘胸蛙常见病害的防治方法[J]. 科学养鱼, 2004(5): 45-46. |
| [9] | 邓德芳. 棘胸蛙红腿病防治初探[J]. 现代农业科技, 2009(6): 200, 207. |
| [10] | 罗厚强, 段龙川, 王清艳, 等. 石蛙常见疾病的综合防治[J]. 农村经济与科技, 2012, 23(4): 36-37. |
| [11] | 徐鹏飞. 棘胸蛙病害的防治方法[J]. 科学种养, 2013(9): 51-52. |
| [12] | 邓志武. 棘胸蛙蝌蚪患烂鳃病、肠炎病和车轮虫病并发的诊治技术[J]. 水产养殖, 2013, 34(6): 48. |
| [13] | 韩晓萍, 张年福, 廖茂勇, 等. 棘胸蛙蝌蚪的常见疾病防治[J]. 江西畜牧兽医杂志, 2014(1): 60-61. |
| [14] | 王晓清, 肖克宁, 资道荣, 等. 牛蛙红腿病防治研究[J]. 湖南农业大学报, 1999, 25(2): 120-123. |
| [15] | 肖克宁, 资道荣, 王晓清. 牛蛙红腿病疾病原菌的致病力及生物学特性的研究[J]. 鱼类病害研究, 1992(3): 26-31. |
| [16] | 谢钦铭, 陈水强. 一种棘胸蛙皮肤病的生态治疗药剂及其使用方法[P]. 中国专利, 201610982751.7. 2016-11-09. |
| [17] | 李明, 宋婷婷, 郑荣泉, 等. 棘胸蛙歪头病病原分离？鉴定与药敏试验[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2016, 44(3): 64-66, 98. |
| [18] | 王瑞君, 熊筱娟. 棘胸蛙烂皮病奇异变形杆菌的分离、鉴定及对药物敏感性研究[J]. 淡水渔业, 2012, 42(4): 31-34. |
| [19] | 马有智, 卢媛媛, 何琳, 等. 棘胸蛙嗜水气单胞菌卵黄抗体的制备及其保护作用研究[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医(科技版), 2013(9): 142-143. |
| [20] | 马有智. 石蛙致病性嗜水气单胞菌的分离鉴定及药敏试验[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医(科技版), 2013(11): 116-117. |
| [21] | 马有智. 棘胸蛙嗜水气单胞菌的生物被膜特性[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2013(7): 894-896. |
| [22] | 宋婷婷, 郑荣泉, 张俊美, 等. 一种棘胸蛙新类型疾病病原分析[J]. 福建水产, 2014, 36(5): 344-350. |
| [23] | Liu, W., Zhao, G.H., Tan, M.Y., et al. (2010) Survey of Spirometra erinaceieuropaei Spargana Infection in the Frog Rana nigromaculata of the Hunan Province of China. Veterinary Parasitology, 173, 152-156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.06.005 |
| [24] | Woodhams, D.C., Bosch, J., Briggs, C.J., et al. (2011) Mitigating Amphibian Disease: Strategies to Maintain Wild Populations and Control Chytridiomycosis. Frontiers in Zoology, 8, Article No. 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-8-8 |
| [25] | Woodhams, D.C., Rollins-Smith, L.A., Reinert, L.K., et al. (2020) Probiotics Modulate a Novel Amphibian Skin Defense Peptide That Is Antifungal and Facilitates Growth of Antifungal Bacteria. Microbial Ecology, 79, 192-202.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-019-01385-9 |
