Potential inert diets to supplement Artemia in larviculture of the giant Africa river prawn Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (Herklots, 1857) (Crustacea: Palaemonidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The protocol of culture of Macrobrachium vollenhovenii the main indigenous candidate for freshwater prawn culture in Africa is still under study. Though just few information exists, the transition of larvae from stage V to stage VI has been reported as the critical rearing period in larviculture. This study was to evaluate the efficiency of two locally diets to supplement Artemia in the feeding scheme from stage V to post larvae in the larviculture of this species. The two experimental diets were differentiated by the main source of protein: fish silage (Diet 1) and shrimp meat (Diet 2). One batch of larvae was cultured till stage V. The experiment itself was conducted in triplicate with three treatments: feeding Artemia exclusively (TA, control); fed partial replacement of Artemia with inert diet 1 (T1) or fed partial replacement of Artemia with diet 2 (T2). Larval development in T2 was significantly faster than TA and T1. Survival rate was significantly higher in T2 (12.64±1.2%) than TA (6.57±0.29%) and T1 (6.77±0.17%). The total length of larvae in T2 was significantly higher than TA and T1. Though the highest survival obtained in this study is still low, it’s however higher than those reported in other studies with this species. Also, the importance of finding alternatives to Artemia and cheaper diets remains very important.
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".