Comparative Growth Performance of Oreochromis Hybrids and Selectively-Bred Strain (F8) in Malawi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most fish farmers in Malawi culture unimproved fish strains whose growth is slow and mature while still small. Four strains of Oreochromis, namely; selectively-bred/improved O. shiranus (F8), two reciprocal F1 Oreochromis hybrids, and O. karongae as a control (mean weight 2.5 ± 0.7 g) were stocked at a density of 5fish/m2 in 9m2 hapas replicated three times, and cultured for 90 days at Bunda Fish Farm. Fish were fed twice a day with feed formulated using maize bran and soybean containing 30% crude protein throughout the experimental period. The final mean weights were significantly different (p<0.05) across the treatments whereby; hybrid O. shiranus (male) X O. karongae (female) was 12.09g, hybrid O. shiranus (female) X O. karongae (male) was 9.72g, improved O. shiranus (F8) registered 9.23g, and O. karongae was the least with 9.00g. Apparent food conversion ratio was also statistically different (p<0.05) across the treatments whereby; O. karongae was 3.63, hybrid O. shiranus (female) X O. karongae (male) was 3.25, improved O. shiranus (F8) was 3.16 and hybrid O. shiranus (male) X O. karongae (female) was lowest with 2.26. There were no significant differences on the water quality parameters across the treatments throughout the experimental period and were within the required ranges for growth and survival of tilapias fish species. The results suggest that Oreochromis hybrids may be suitable candidates for aquaculture in terms of production as they performed better than the improved O. shiranus and the control O. karongae.
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".