LA FARINE DE FEUILLES DE MORINGA OLEIFERA LAM, UN FACTEUR DE DÉVELOPPEMENT DE LA TILAPIACULTURE (OREOCHROMIS NILOTICUS, LINNAEUS 1758) AU MALI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractA study was carried out to evaluate the impact of Moringa oleifera leaf meal fed to Oreochromis niloticus(Linnaeus, 1758) growth performance. Two diets, R0 and R20, respectively containing 0 and 20% of groundmoringa leaf meal were formulated. Two hundred and eighty juvenile tilapia of 2 size classes (6.87 ± 0.04 and97.1± 0.2 g) were distributed according to the average mass in two batches. After 28 days of experimentation,the final average mass were 23 ± 0.65 and 26.7 ± 2.69 g in small fish versus 144.0 ± 15.7 and 176.2 ± 10.8 g forthe large cohorts according to the treatments. Highest growth rates and food conversion were obtained by the R0food. Statistical analysis shows no significant difference (P > 0.05) between the two modes for the food indexconversion, as well at the small ones as in large fishes. The quantity of food necessary to produce an increase inthe live weight in fishes was thus not significantly different, inside the same group of fishes, for the two modessuggested. Moringa leaf meal can thus be used for the development of tilapiaculture.Keywords: Food, Tilapia, Moringa, Index of appetite, Growth, Food index conversion
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".