Effect of Salinity on Growth, Feed Utilization, and Survival of<i>Tilapia rendalli</i>Under Laboratory Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Juvenile T. rendalli were evaluated for 10 weeks to determine the effect of salinity on growth, feed utilization, and survival in tanks. Fish weighing 3.94 ± 0.44 g were stocked into twelve 50-L rectangular tanks at 15 fish /tank. The fish were raised in three salinity levels (5, 10, 15‰, and freshwater as a control). There were three replicate tanks per treatment. After the feeding experiment, a digestibility trial was conducted for two weeks. After 70 days, fish in the 10‰ treatment grew significantly larger (P < 0.05) than those in 5‰, 15‰, and freshwater. T. rendalli cultured in 10‰ had significantly lower feed conversion ratios and higher feed conversion efficiency and protein efficiency ratios. Survival of the fish was significantly (P < 0.05) different and depended on salinity level. The apparent digestibilities of crude protein, fat, ash, and gross energy were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in T. rendalli cultured in the 10‰ salinity treatment. However, apparent digestibility of dry matter did not differ significantly (P < 0.05) between 10‰ and 5‰. The results obtained indicate that 10‰ is optimal for T. rendalli in tank culture.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".