The Effect of Walnut (Tetracarpidium conophorum) Leaf and Onion (Allium cepa) Bulb Residues on the Growth Performance and Nutrient Utilization of Clarias gariepinus Juveniles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feeding trial were conducted in experimental tanks (50 x 34 x 27 cm) to assess the growth responses and nutrient utilization of Walnut Leaf (WL) and Onion Bulb (OB) residues in Clarias gariepinus. Nine experimental diets: control (0%), OB2 (0.5%), OB3 (1.0%), OB4 (1.5%), OB5 (2.0%), WL6 (0.5%), WL7 (1.0%), WL8 (1.5%) and WL9 (2.0%) were formulated and replicated thrice at 40% crude protein. Fish (mean weight 7.39±0.02 g and length 10.37±1.24 cm) were fed twice daily at 3% body weight for 12 weeks. Mean Weight Gain (MWG), Specific Growth Rate (SGR) and Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) were measured. Temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH were determined using standard methods and economic analysis was investigated. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ANOVA at p=0.05. Results showed that the Fish on OB and WL residue- based diets had higher growth than those on control diet but C. gariepinus fed WL8 had significantly higher MWG, SGR and FCR of 53.81±1.20 g, 1.09±0.11 g and 2.16±0.01 respectively of all treatments. The values of temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH were closely related and were still within the range for fish culture in the tropics. WL8 had higher profit index (1.40) and incidence of cost (0.032) and the least in OB5 (1.18) (0.039) respectively. These suggest that walnut leaf residue at 1.5% inclusion could be a potential, less expensive and promising dietary supplementation than onion bulb residue and control that would positively affect growth and water quality of Clarias gariepinus in aquaculture.
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) | 0.001 | 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".