Open this record in the complete research map
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.
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.
- Record CSL-JSON citation Citation export
The record citation export derives its note and source metadata from the evidence registry. - Record RIS citation Citation export
The record citation export derives its note and source metadata from the evidence registry. - Complete CSL-JSON bibliography Citation export
The complete citation export includes every evidence registry record. - Complete RIS bibliography Citation export
The complete citation export includes every evidence registry record. - feeding portable decision card Generated decision-card text
The portable text derives from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section and both permanent links. - feeding complete visual decision card Generated decision-card visual
The typography-only visual and exact accessibility description derive from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section. - Effect Of Market Vegetable Waste Fermented Feeding On The Growth Of Red Cherry Ornamental Shrimp (Neocaridina davidi) Canonical evidence page
The canonical evidence page derives from the current evidence registry record. - feeding evidence dossier Generated guide dossier
The dossier derives its linked evidence set from the record care path. - Machine-readable knowledge export Machine-readable knowledge export
The versioned export includes the complete evidence registry and source-integrity audit. - Research map record Research map
The research map derives its source boundary from the evidence registry.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Treatment assignment: Were independent units assigned to treatments, and were baseline conditions comparable? Unclear allocation or baseline imbalance can confound the treatment comparison.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- A diet result is specific to its formulation and endpoint: The corpus does not establish one complete diet, universal portion, feeding frequency or long-term product ranking across lines and colony conditions.
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.