MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066643616 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n2p269

Effect of Garlic (Allium sativum) on Growth, Nutrient Utilization, Resistance and Survival of Tilapia zillii (Gervais 1852) Fingerlings

2011· article· en· W2066643616 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Temitope Jegede

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGarlic and Onion Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllium sativumGARLIC POWDERBiologyBasal (medicine)Animal scienceNutrientInternal medicineEndocrinologyBotanyMedicineEcologyInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A feeding trial was conducted for 75 days to determine the effects of garlic (Allium sativum) on nutrient utilization and growth in T. zillii fingerling. Five isonitrogenous and isocalorific diets (35% crude protein and 18.5MJ gross energy/kg diet) were formulated containing the control, D (0g garlic kg-1 basal diet), D1 (5g garlic kg-1 basal diet), D2 (10g garlic kg-1 basal diet), D3 (15g garlic kg-1 basal diet) and D4 (20g garlic kg-1 basal diet) and fed to triplicate group of Tilapia zillii at 4% body weight. Ten (10) Tilapia zillii (11.00+ 0.01g) fingerlings were stocked in each concrete tank with three replicate per treatment making a total of 150 fingerlings in all. T. zillii fed the diet having 20g inclusion level of garlic/kg basal diet (D 4) had better growth rate (32.12 ± 0.04) and feed efficiency (1.27±0.04)than the control diet and rest of the diets (D1, D2 and D3). Also, the survival rate of T. zillii was significantly higher in all the treatments (D1, D2, D3 and D4) compared to the control (D) and it increases with increase in the inclusion level of garlic in the basal diets (71.69-100.00) %. Apparent Protein Digestibility (APD) increases with increase in the inclusion level of garlic from 71.23% in the control diet to 85.16% in diet 4, (20 g garlic / kg control diet).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGarlic and Onion StudiesFrench-language works237,207