Growth Performance and Feed Utilization of Clarias gariepinus (Teugels) Fed Different Dietary Levels of Soaked Bauhinia Monandra (Kutz) Seed Meal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate the suitability of soaked Bauhinia monandra (Kutz) seed as alternative protein source for Clarias gariepinus and to determine cost of feed compounded. The proximate analysis of the diet (crude protein, crude fibre, ash, moisture content and lipid) were determined using AOAC (1980). Data for each parameter was subjected to one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) while means of various results were compared at 5% level of significance. A preliminary study was conducted to determine the best processing method that reduced anti-nutrients to the minimum level without impairing nutrients composition. Boiled, toasted and soaked seeds were used. Bauhinia seeds soaked for 96 hours had least concentration of anti-nutrients. The experimental diets was formulated to contain soaked Bauhinia seed meal (SBSM) at levels of 25%, 50% and 75% inclusion (Diets 2, 3 and 4 respectively) with two diets acting as control (Diets 1 and 5). All diets were isonitrogenous (40% crude protein) and isocaloric (3212kcal/kg). A 12 weeks feeding trial was conducted using juveniles which were randomly distributed into 12 improvised non-recirculatory and semi-flow through indoor plastic tanks (52cm X 34cm X 33.5cm) at a stocking rate of 10 fish per tank and three (3) replicates per treatment. The experimental design was complete randomized. The fish were fed at 5% body weight, twice daily. Diets with higher inclusion levels of SBSM (diets 3 and 4) significantly depressed growth performance of fish. The variations observed in the Specific Growth Rate (SGR), Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), Feed Efficiency Ratio (FER) and Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) were associated with the anti-nutrients present in the diets, these parameters reduced with increasing levels of SBSM in the diets of fish. Based on the relative cost of diets per unit weight gain and protein gain, diet 2 (25% SBSM) was most economical. The results suggested that SBSM can be used to substitute up to 25% levels of dietary protein in C. gariepinus juveniles without significant reduction in growth.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".