Effects of Different Feeding Rates on Growth Performance and Body Composition of Red Tilapia, <i>Oreochromis mossambiquse x O. niloticus</i>, Fingerlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In aquaculture feeding rate is an important factor affecting the growth of fish and thus determining the optimal feeding rate is important to the success of any aquaculture operation. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal feeding rate for red tilapia ( Oreochromis sp.). A 12-week feeding trial was conducted to examine the effects of different levels of the feeding rates on the growth performance and body composition of red tilapia, ( Oreochromis sp.). Fish of an average initial weight of 0.9±0.01 g were stocked in 12 glass aquaria (80 L each) at a rate of 15 fish per aquarium. All fish were fed the same diets contained 33.8% crude protein at a feeding rate of 1, 3, 5 and 7% of body weight daily. The results revealed that there was a significant differences in growth performance and feed utilization parameters with increasing feeding rates up to 5 % (P 0.05) by feeding rates. Lipid and ash contents were significantly (P < 0.05) influenced by feeding rates. These findings suggest that feeding rate of 5% of body weight daily can be considered as the optimal feeding rate for red tilapia fingerlings which significantly enhance fish growth, feed utilization and body composition parameters.
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".