The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Effect Of Market Vegetable Waste Fermented Feeding On The Growth Of Red Cherry Ornamental Shrimp (Neocaridina davidi)

Wijaya et al., 2023. Barakuda 45 5(1): 102-113.

Open the source

This record is a claim boundary, not a quality badge. Evidence class and species relationship describe what was studied. They do not make the result universal, complete or automatically applicable to a home aquarium.

Source taxon as published
Neocaridina davidi, red cherry study stock
Environment
Fifteen nominal 30 by 30 by 30 cm aquarium compartments filled with 21.6 litres of water, aerated and supplied with two pots of hornwort for 40 days; reported water temperature was 26.3 to 26.8 C and pH was 7.32 to 7.83
Life stages
healthy red cherry shrimp without deep red colour
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: A Spirulina-tablet control and four market-vegetable treatments made from mustard greens, carrot, bean sprouts or cabbage were assigned to three aquarium compartments each. Vegetables were washed, boiled for about one minute at 72 C, fermented for five days in 600 mL water with 10 mL EM4 product and 20 mL molasses, then kept available ad libitum with twice-daily checks and replacement. Shrimp were stocked at a stated density of one per litre and 12 animals per aquarium were sampled every ten days.

Experimental unit: Aquarium compartment, with three compartments per feed; the exact integer starting count, hydraulic isolation of compartments and whether aquarium or sampled-animal values entered the ANOVA were not reported clearly

Endpoints: absolute length gain, absolute weight gain, specific growth rate, survival, feed proximate composition, temperature, pH.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Under this exact 40-day preparation and feeding protocol, the mustard-green, bean-sprout and cabbage groups were not statistically distinguished from the Spirulina-tablet control for the reported length gain, weight gain or specific growth rate, while the carrot group was lower. Reported survival did not differ statistically among treatments.

What it cannot support: Only three aquarium units represented each feed, the analysis unit was not explicit, and food was kept available ad libitum without an exact ration, measured intake, uneaten-feed recovery or leaching correction. Wet products differed substantially in moisture and proximate composition and were not balanced for dry matter, protein or energy. There was no unfermented-vegetable, EM4-only or molasses-only group, so the study cannot isolate fermentation, a vegetable ingredient or either additive. Survival means were only 63.33 to 71.66 percent, and the authors attributed many deaths to repeated measurement outside water. Only temperature and pH were reported. The result does not validate fresh or blanched grocery vegetables, market scraps, home fermentation, a complete vegetable diet, a food-safety procedure, a removal interval or replacement of a formulated food.

Publication status audit

Matched in dated Crossref query

The canonical DOI appeared in the dated broad query and carried no registered update in that response. This is a metadata observation, not proof that the work has never changed.

Metadata snapshot reviewed 2026-08-12. Inspect the method, unmatched queue and limitations.

Correction impact

If this source boundary changes, these are the known downstream consumers. The list distinguishes scientific re-review from generated parity and historical follow-up.

Editorial review required (3)

This curated wording or synthesis must be reconsidered when the source boundary changes. A passing generator test cannot decide the new scientific meaning.

  • feeding decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • A diet result is specific to its formulation and endpoint Curated evidence comparison
    The bounded reconciliation and unresolved question use this record in an explicit comparison.
  • feeding practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.

Generated from governing registry (10)

This surface derives from a governing registry and should update with it, but release tests must still prove parity and routing.

Inspect the corpus-wide propagation audit.

How this record is classified

Controlled experiment: An assigned treatment or controlled comparison. The treatment, unit, duration and endpoint still limit the claim.

Direct Neocaridina evidence: The source measured animals named within Neocaridina. Direct still does not mean universal or sufficient.

Topics: Feeding, Growth and lifespan

Critically appraise this source without a score

These questions fit this record's controlled experiment role. They are prompts, not automatic judgments. Open the original source to answer them.

  1. Identity and provenance: How were the organism, population, stock and life stage identified and sourced? A published name or seller label can hide a taxonomic, population or life-stage transfer.
  2. Independent unit: What unit was independently assigned or sampled, and how many units support each comparison? Animal counts do not create independent replication when animals share a vessel, site, family or treatment history.
  3. Comparison and context: What was the actual comparator, allocation process, environment, duration and material condition? A result has meaning only against the comparison and conditions that produced it.
  4. Endpoint and measurement: Which endpoint was measured, with what method, unit, timing, resolution and decision rule? One endpoint cannot silently become survival, welfare, diagnosis, reproduction or long-term population performance.
  5. Denominators and missingness: Are starting counts, exclusions, losses, missing observations and analysis denominators reconciled? Unreported or changing denominators can alter the apparent direction, precision and applicability of a result.
  6. Transfer boundary: What is the nearest tempting aquarium claim that this source design cannot establish? Direct evidence can still be narrow, and adjacent evidence can be useful only while the inference remains visible.
  7. Treatment assignment: Were independent units assigned to treatments, and were baseline conditions comparable? Unclear allocation or baseline imbalance can confound the treatment comparison.
  8. Replication: Were treatment vessels or other exposure units independently replicated rather than subsampled? Repeated animals or assays inside one exposure unit do not replicate the environmental treatment.
  9. Exposure verification: Was the treatment, dose, feed intake or environmental exposure measured and maintained as described? Nominal treatment labels may not equal the exposure animals actually received.
  10. Analysis: Did the statistical model match the unit, repeated measures, multiplicity and missing outcomes? A precise p-value cannot repair a mismatched unit or unaccounted comparison structure.

Read the complete appraisal framework.

Where it is used

Where this result is compared

These governed comparisons show why this record can appear to conflict with another result without electing a winner or hiding unresolved uncertainty.

Reuse the reviewed citation boundary

Download CSL-JSON or download RIS. Both retain this record's support, limitation and review note.

Challenge a transcription, interpretation or missing boundary. A challenge changes the record only after editorial review.