Effect Of Probiotics On Growth, Survival And Yield Of Penaeus Vannamei (Boone, 1931) In Culture Ponds At Susaram Village, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the growth, survival rate and yield of Penaeus vannamei during 120 days of culture period in two experimental ponds with same stocking densities i.e.1,25,000 PL/ acre pond. Out of two ponds, one is probiotic treated pond and other is control pond. The Blanca, CP. Pvt. Ltd., shrimp feed was given as supplementary feed in both experimental ponds. The Probiotic, SUPER-PS, CP. Pvt. Ltd. was applied in treatment pond. The experiment was done in Winter Season at Susaram village, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh. In the present study Penaeus vannamei yield observed after completion of the 120 days experimental period was1562.2 kg/acre in control pond, whereas the highest yield 2246.4 kg/acre was reported in treatment pond. The survival rate 60% and 72% was noticed in control and treatment ponds respectively. The Specific Growth Rate observed in control pond was 4.535% , whereas in Treatment pond it was 4.654%. The lowest Average Daily Growth 0.17g/day was notice in control pond, whereas the highest growth 0.20g/day was noticed in treatment pond. The lowest FCR 1:1.25 was reported in treatment pond and highest FCR 1:2.13was noticed in control pond.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".