In vivo and In vitro digestibility of different novel canola protein concentrates developed by solid state fermentation technique in Rainbow Trout <i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The need to reduce fishmeal use and improve feed efficiency in salmonid nutrition has created a major challenge of developing novel feed ingredients for aquafeeds. One sustainable approach to deal with this challenge is producing renewable concentrated proteins using plant proteins. Canola meal is the second most grown plant protein source after soybean meal and accounts for about 13% of the world production of protein meals (253.27 mt) in 2010-2011. Solid state fermentation is an environmentally friendly bio-processing method for producing concentrated plant proteins. The aim of the current study was to investigate in vivo and in vitro apparent digestibility (AD) of canola protein concentrates produced using solid state fermentation technology in rainbow trout. The fermented canola protein concentrates produced by Neurospora sitophila (107 spore/g; FCPC) and Rhizopus microsporus var. oligosporus (106 and 107 spore/g; FCPC1 and FCPC2, respectively) were included in experimental diets (consisting 30% of each ingredient and 70% basal diet). Rainbow trout (initial weight, 29.52.8 g) were held in a recirculation system (3 tanks per treatment, 30 fish per 120-l tank). Culture conditions (T, 170.3C; pH, 7.00.15; DO, 7.70.16 mg O2/l; photoperiod, 12L:12D) were regulated based on the optimum ranges reported for salmonids with a daily water exchange rate of 10%. To measure AD the experimental diets were fed to satiation for 9 days. Faeces were then collected over a 7 day period in a Guelph system and freeze dried. After anesthetizing the fish with clove oil (100 ppm), the pyloric caeca (15 fish per treatment) were collected, homogenized with distilled water (1:5 w/v) and then centrifuged (13000 g, 20 min at 4C) for enzyme extraction at -80C.In vivo ADs of dry matter (92.05%), crude protein (87.03%) and gross energy (88.47%) of FCPC2 were significantly (P<0.05) higher than those of FCPC1 (74.45, 72.37 and 71.74%) and FCPC (77.86, 73.22 and 75.15%), respectively. In vivo ADs of sulfur amino acids (methionine and cysteine) (92.55%) and lysine (94.65%) of FCPC2 were significantly (P<0.05) higher than other concentrates. In vitro ADs of dry matter (68.16%), crude protein (70.46%) and gross energy (65.24%) of FCPC were significantly (P<0.05) higher than those of FCPC1 (49.93, 54.34 and 51.0%). There were significant (P<0.05) regressions (R2=82.4-85.5) between in vivo and in vitro ADs for dry matter, crude protein and gross energy. Differences among ADs may be related to the metabolism rate of fungi leading to over bio-processing of nutrients and the production of unknown compounds competing with amino acids during intestinal absorption and interfering with their absorption.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».