Influence of Ovaprim And Pituitary Gland on The Reproductive Indices and Growth of <i>Clarias garipienus</i> (Burchell, 1822) Broodstock Reared in An Indoor and Outdoor Pond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ovaprim and pituitary gland from C. gariepinus was used to ascertain the reproductive indices and growth value of the hatchlings (F1) of C. gariepinus at the Fisheries and Research Institute Baga. Broodstocks mean body weight males (1200 g) and females (800 g) was collected from Lake Chad and transported to the institute hatchery complex. It was injected with ovaprim and pituitary gland. The fecundity, sperm volume and weight of the testes were estimated after the latency period. While the hatchlings were reared for eight weeks in a complete randomized design setup in an indoor and outdoor facility to evaluate the weight and length increase. The result revealed significant difference ( P >0.05) in the fecundity of the females, ovaprim had 10,500 while pituitary gland had 7,000. There was significant difference ( P >0.05) in % fertility and hatchability of the eggs. However, the male injected with ovaprim had higher milt volume (2.2 mL). Subsequently, there was no significant difference ( P >0.05) in weight and length parameters across the treatments for the period of the research, the mean weight gains of fry reared indoor induced with ovaprim was 8.77 g while pituitary gland extract was 8.13 g. Meanwhile, the fingerlings reared four weeks in an outdoor pond had a significant growth, the fingerlings induced with ovaprim had 14.35 g in weight gain while pituitary gland was 14.42 g. There was no significant ( P >0.05) difference between the two hormones on fingerling production. There was no significant difference ( P >0.05) between increase in length of fry reared indoors and outdoors for four weeks. This study proved that pituitary can effectively be used to induce Catfish breeding, when considering its availability and high cost of purchasing ovaprim.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".