Propolis extract as a feed additive of the Nile tilapia juveniles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study was conducted to investigate the effects of dietary propolis alcohol extract supplementation on growth performance, digestibility, intestinal morphometry, and physiologic parameters Nile tilápia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) juveniles. For performance experiment and intestinal morphometry, 120 fish averaging 1.41±0.3g were randomly distributed into 24 tanks (70L each) in a closed recirculation water system with constant aeration and biofilter. The animals were distributed into four treatments using a completely randomized design with six replicates per treatment. The treatments consisted of four pellet feeds with different alcohol propolis concentrations extract (AEP) (0.0, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5gkg-1). The performance experiment period was conducted for 45 days. For the digestibility experiment, an inert marker in the feed and the adapted Guelph feces collecting system were used. The results showed no differences in the performance parameters, crude protein apparent digestibility and dry matter of the feeds, intestinal morphometry, and physiologic parameters. However, there was an increasing linear effect on the energy digestibility with increasing PAE concentrations in the fish feed. The usage of the propolis extract supplementation levels of 1% is recommended for optimum effect on villus morphometry in Nile tilapia.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.251 | 0.012 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".