GARLIC POWDER IN RATIONS FOR NILE TILAPIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The This study evaluated the effect of levels of garlic powder (0.0, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 g.kg-1) added to diets for Nile tilapia on animal performance, villi height and diet digestibility. The rations consisted of pellets and tilapia and were fed to apparent satiation for 60 days. 120 fish, with initial average weight of 4.20 ± 0.4 g, were masculinized and distributed in 24 aquariums of 70L in a randomized design consisting of four treatments and six replications in a closed circulation system with constant aeration. 240 fishes was used for feces collected by an indirect method (Guelph modified system) and estimation of coefficients of apparent digestibility using 0.5 g.kg-1 of chromic oxide as an inert indicator incorporated into the ration. No significant differences in performance related to organ weight, the hepato-somatic index, the viscero-somatic fat index and villi height were observed. However, the apparent digestibility coefficient of rations was negatively affected by the addition of garlic powder. Garlic powder as an additive in rations for Nile tilapia did not provide positive effects as a growth promoter and worsened the digestibility of nutrients among the tested treatments.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".