Effects of Protein Levels on the Growth Performance of Giant African Land Snails (Achatina achatina) in Captivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to preserve and conserve the Giant African Land Snails, a study was carried out between September 2015 and January 2017 at the University of Buea (South-West Region, Cameroon), to assess the effect of protein level on the characteristics of growth of Achatina achatina in captivity. 90 young snails of one month old, weighing between 1 and 1.5 g, of shell length between 15.5-23.85 mm and shell diameter between 12.60-16.85 mm and free from wounds or shell defects were divided into 3 groups of 5 snails each and 6 replicates in cages equipped with feeders and drinking troughs. Each treatment was randomly assigned to one of the experimental feed with variable protein levels (20, 22 and 24%) in addition to pawpaw leaves as a staple feed. These were previously weighed as well as the remnants using a 0.5g precision balance. The cultured substrates were watered daily (0.50 liter/substrate). At the beginning of the test, and then every week, the snails were weighed, and shell measurements done using a digital caliper of 0.05 mm accuracy. The animals were monitored for fourteen months. The results show that feed intake (3.01±1.57), weight gain (24.50±5.72), daily weight gain (0.058±0.016), gain of shell length (30.26±4.19) were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in snails receiving 24% protein in the diet compared to snails from the other treatments. The highest consumption index was recorded in snails receiving 20% protein in the diet but the statistical analyses did not find any significant difference. In conclusion, the protein level of 24% can be retained in the diet of growing snails.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".