The Growth Response of Clarias gariepinus Hatchlings to Different Dry Feeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hatchery facilities of a reputable fish farm in Abeokuta were used to carry out studies on the effects of different diets on the survival of African catfish Clarias gariepinus hatchlings. The larvae (1.8mg each) were distributed into the twelve feeding experiment apartments (1.7 m × 0.7 m x 0.5 m each) at 1,500 lavae/apartment. On the fourth day, feeding commenced with the experimental diets. The diets were fish meal (Danish) of 72% Crude Protein; baker’s yeast (VAHINE); compounded feed (50% Crude Protein) and hen egg yolk. Each treatment was replicated thrice and feed fed to the larvae at 30% body weight twice daily for 30 days. All the experimental diets had no significant effects on the growth of the larvae to fingerling at P > 0.05. The mean fingerlings final weight (mg) was 1523.2 ±295, 1700.8 ± 686, 367.9 ± 118 and 1675.9 ± 1167 for fish meal, yeast, compounded feed and hen egg yolk respectively. The specific and relative growth rates of the larvae under all the treatments were also not significant (P > 0.05). Considering the growth parameters, the best performance was observed in fish fed diet 2 (yeast), closely followed by diet 4 (hen egg yolk), then diet 1 (fish meal) and least in fish fed diet 3 (compounded feed). The low survival rate observed in all the diets, Compounded feed (10%) > hen egg yolk (4.1%) > Fish meal (3.5%) > yeast(1.7%) could be attributed to the lack of sorting exercise carried out in the experiment.
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) | 0.002 | 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".