Effects of supplementary nutrient in an aquaponic system for production of ornamental red tilapia (Oreochromis Sp.) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa var longifolia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effects of supplementary nutrient in the production of red tilapia (Oreochromis sp) and Lettuce (Lactuca sativa var longifolia) evaluated in a representative water recirculating aquaculture system. The nutrient solution supplemented was 25% level of (L25) nutrient solution as medium used for aquaponic production of lettuce in the NFT system (based on cooper’s formula). Thus, a completely randomized experimental design conducted with two treatments in triplicates (Pl25 and PL0). Six black rectangular tanks (114 x 86 x 100cm) used as fish culture tanks and each one equipped with three hydroponic troughs. Each tank filled with 640 L of water and aerated continuously with two circular air stones (3 L min-1) during the experiment. The system was efficiently able to remove high rate of total ammonia -nitrogen (TAN) excreted by fish during the experiment. The fish attained marketable size (200g) during a 110 –day period. Nutrient supply had not significant effects (p>0.05) on growth of fish during experimental period. The yields (Biomass/tank) of fish in treatments PL25 and Pl0 were 9.97 and 9.26 kg / tank, respectively. Three times cultivation and harvest of lettuce carried out during the experimental period. At the first harvest, the yield (mean wet weight) of lettuce showed significant (p<0.05) differences between treatments, 1437g and 85 g in treatments PL25 and Pl0, respectively. In the second and third lettuce harvests, the yield of lettuce did not show any significant differences (p>0.05) and averaged 2112 and 1419 (Second harvest) and 1173 and 807 (Third harvest) for treatments PL25 and PL0, respectively. It was recorded that red tilapia could tolerate 25% of nutrient solution, used for aquaponic production of lettuce, and introduction of nutrient solution to the culture system is necessary to get higher yield of lettuce at initiation of culture system.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".