Intensive rearing of European catfish larvae (Silurus glanis L.) at different stocking densities and their effect on fish production parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the present research, two studies are conducted (Study I and Study II), in two consecutive years, by applying the same scheme of stocking density. Each study has duration of 16 days. The object of the experiment is European catfish larvae reared in tubs with continuous water flow (0.7 l.min-1). Throughout the experimental period, all fish are fed with „Ocean nutrition” – Canada (0.8–1.0 mm) to satiation, three times per day. At the beginning and at the end of each study, weight assessments are performed using 50 randomly selected individuals from each stocking density variant. The average weight of the larvae at the start of Study I is in the range of 50.7 ± 11.9 mg to 86.2 ± 20.1 mg and at the start of Study II – from 182.5 ± 58.0 mg to 199.3 ± 70.9 mg. The number of larvae used in Study I is 2400 and in Study II – 3600. The scheme of stocking density consists of three variants: Variant A (5 ind.l-1), Variant B (10 ind.l-1) and Variant C (15 ind.l-1). In Study I, each variant of stocking density is applied with one repetition, whereas in Study II – with two repetitions for better statistical analysis. The results from the study demonstrate that the weight gain (IWG, mg) and the survival rate (SR, %) are strongly affected by the variant of stocking density, with a significant difference being established (P ≤ 0.05). Both parameters have the highest values for the lowest stocking density (Variant A – 5 ind.l-1). The established values for the growth rates (AWG, DGR, SGR), for Study I and Study II, indicate that they are significantly affected by the different variants of the stocking density (P ≤ 0.05).
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".