Annona Squamosa Lab Report

Fishes of mixed sexes were divided into four groups (n = 21) and kept in glass aquarium containing 15 litre of water. The control and experimental groups I, II & III were exposed to 5,10 and 15ml of dose in 15Litre of different concentration of (25%, 50%,100%) aqueous leaf extract of Annona squamosa in it every alternate day till 30 days. The control group and experimental fishes were fed with pelleted commercial food and worms at 2% of body weight and water was changed daily after 24 hours of feeding. Growth rate were determined after 15 and 30 days. After 30 days of immersionin different concentration of aqueous extract of leaf, all experimental fishes were taken out and were kept in water devoid of leaf extract and then all experimental
100 674.2 1076 29.5

TABLE 2: Antibacterial activity of different extracts of Annona squamosa by agar well diffusion method

S.No. Doses of extract % Inhibition Zone of A. hydrophila(mm) Inhibition Zone of standard (mm)
1 25 No clear zone seen 8.1±0.36
2 50 No clear zone seen 9.16±0.57
3 75 No clear zone seen 10.33±0.47
4 100 16.5 ± 0.91mm 11.67±1.5

In aqueous leaf extract of Annona squamosa Linn.of this study however we found that the aqueous extract of leaf has also reported to inhibit the growth of gram negative bacteria strain (Aeromonas hydrophila). Aqueous extract of Annona squamosa in 100% concentration showed highest antibacterial activity against the fish pathogen A.hydrophila with the inhibition zone of 16.5 ± 0.91mm and no inhibition zone was found at 25% and 50% of extract respectively.The positive control Linezolid disc showed the highest inhibition zone of 11.67±1.5mm, distilled water was used as negative control, noinhibition zone was observed in control. Our investigation showed that the antibacterial activity shown by the aqueous leaf extracts of the Annona squamosa Linn. plants is possibly due to the presence of phytochemicals i.e tannins, phenols and
Before conducting the experiments the initial body weight and body length of fishes from each group (Control, Gr.I, Gr II and Gr.III) were recorded and they were considered as control and the readings of both were as given below: body weight: 120±12gm, 121±12.3gm, 121.8±12.3gm and 122.1±13.7gm and body length of the fishes were measured are as follows: 16.8±1.3 cm, 17.1±1.4cm, 17.1±1.3cm and 17.2±1.3 respectively. After experimental treatment of 15 days the weight of the fishes were recorded again from each group (Control, Gr.I, Gr II and Gr.III) andthe readings are mentioned below: 122.9±12gm, 123.4±14gm, 124±13 gm and 125.2±12gm, body length: 17.4±1.5 cm, 17.4±1.3cm, 17.4±1.4cm and 17.6±1.5 respectively. After 30 days of treatment the final body weight of each group (Control, Gr.I, Gr II and Gr.III) were recorded and they are given below: 125.5±15gm, 126±13gm, 127.5±14gmand 130.4±12 gm and body length: 17.5±1.2 cm, 17.6±1.3cm, 17.7±1.1cm and 17.9±1.1respectively. The growth status (Length and weight) analysed after 0, 15 and 30 days showed an increasing trend in the entire three experimental groups as compared to control