Comparative Proximate and Mineral Composition of Moringa oleifera and Moringa ovalifolia Grown in Central Namibia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the proximate and mineral compositions of Moringa oleifera and Moringa ovalifolia grown together at Neudamm Experimental Farm in central Namibia. Moringa oleifera is well known for its rich nutritional value and was compared to the nutritional value of M. ovalifolia, a native plant of Namibia and Angola, which is less studied. Namibia being a semi-arid country, many plants in the rangelands are low in nutrients essential for livestock nutrition. This creates the necessity for planting fodder trees like moringa that withstand the harsh climatic conditions and retain their nutritional quality for the production of sustained livestock supplement. Leaves of both Moringa species were harvested with twiglets, shade dried fortnightly and taken to the laboratory where they were ground and passed through 1 mm sieve for proximate and mineral analysis. Statistically, M. oleifera nutrient values were significantly different (P < 0.05) in moisture, ash, crude protein (CP) and crude fiber (CF) from M. ovalifolia, but had no differences in fat, acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF). Also, M. oleifera was significantly different (P < 0.05) from M. ovalifolia in potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn), but there were no differences in calcium (Ca), sodium (Na), phosphorus (P), iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) values. This implies that both Moringa species have similar quantity of Ca, Na, P, Fe and Mn in their leaf tissues. The almost identical nutrient values of the two Moringa species, suggests that M. ovalifolia could serve as an alternative supplement for livestock since there is a known human-livestock competition for M. oleifera, and since M. ovalifolia is native and well adapted to the harsh environmental conditions of Namibia.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".