Performance of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Fed Diets Containing Blood Meal as a Replacement of Fish Meal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>A 100 days experiment was conducted to determine the effect of feeding blood meal (BM) as a replacement of fish meal (FM), as the main source of animal protein, on growth rate and economic performance of Nile tilapia in fertilized pond. Three isonitrogenous diets (35% crude protein) were formulated using either FM as the main source of animal protein (Diet 1); 50% replacement of FM with blood meal (Diet 2); or 100% replacement of FM with BM (Diet 3). Three hundred Nile tilapia fingerlings (12±3 g) were randomly distributed into three groups of four replicates of 25 fingerlings per cage. The groups were randomly assigned the 3 diets which were fed at 2% of their biomass at 10 am and 4 pm every day. Percentage daily weight gain (DWG), relative growth rate (RGR), specific growth rate (SGR), survival rate and feed utilisation efficiency were measured. Fish fed diet 1 were larger (50.69 g) (P &lt; 0.05) than those fed diet 2 (48.47 g) and 3 (40.37 g). Replacement of FM with 50% and 100% BM reduced the incidence cost (45.55, 37.83 and 31.88, respectively). The profit index was highest with 100% (9.42) replacement of FM, compared to 50% (7.95) and 0% (6.69). Although replacing FM with BM was associated with reduced growth, the economic return was better (P &lt; 0.05). Based on the present results, it was economical to use BM as a major protein source instead of FM in formulating fish feed.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".