The Effect of Ammonia on Growth and Survival Rate of <i>Tilapia rendalli</i> in Quail Manured Tanks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment was conducted to determine the effect of ammonia on growth and survival rate of Tilapia rendalli reared in concrete tanks for 14 weeks using quail manure. It was a completely randomized design (CRD) with five treatments; T1 (control, without quail manure), T2 (0.32kg quail manure/tank/week), T3 (0.40kg quail manure/ tank/week), T4 (0.48kg quail manure/tank/week) and T5 (0.64kg quail manure/tank/ week), replicated two times. Twenty-five fish, with an average individual initial weight of 14 g were stocked per tank, each measuring, 2m × 2m (4m 2 ). Every fortnight individual fish were weighed on a sensitive scale and the length measured on a measuring board to the nearest 0.1 cm. The results of the experiment indicated that fish raised under treatment 4 (T4) grew much faster (ANOVA, P<0.05) than the other groups with weight gain of 246%. T2 had the lowest mean weight gain of 86.08%. The final mean weights ranged from 26.23 g to 47.55 g, while total length ranged from 111mm ± 2.29mm to 140.1mm ± 2.29mm respectively . The study further revealed that in order to achieve table size growth and survival of fish, 0.48 kg quail manure/week/4m 2 should be used as optimum for better growth of fish, although no primary productivity was measured to estimate zooplankton biomass. At the same time, daily growth rate was good and within acceptable range for fish of the same size. Survival rate in all treatments was very high, with the lowest being above 60%. The study further demonstrated that higher amounts of ammonia affected growth and survival of the fish in treatment 5 (T5), a tank with the highest amount of quail manure added per week.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".