Apparent digestibility of dry matter, protein and energy regarding fish meal, poultry by-product meal and quinua for Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMEN El presente estudio se realizo con el objeto de determinar los coeficientes de digestibilidad aparente(CDA) de la proteina (CDAp) y de la energia (CDAe) de harina de pescado (HP), harina de visceras depollo (HVP) y harina de quinua Chenopodium quinoa (HQ), para tilapia nilotica Oreochromis niloticus .Para estimar los coeficientes se utilizo el metodo indirecto con marcador (oxido de cromo), colectandolas heces por el sistema Guelph modificado. Tilapias con peso promedio de 130 gr se alimentaron conuna dieta experimental constituida por dieta referencia (DR) (89.5 %, 79.5 % o 69.5 %), 0.5 % de marcadorinerte y el ingrediente a evaluar en un nivel de inclusion de 10 %, 20 % o 30 %. Las heces comenzaron acolectarse 10 horas despues de suministrar el alimento, cada hora durante 12 horas; las muestras sesecaron a una temperatura de 60oC y se almacenaron a –17°C hasta ser analizadas. Los CDAp para lostres niveles de inclusion (10, 20 y 30 %) fueron respectivamente: 88.1, 89.4 y 90.9 % para HP; 96.8, 94.9y 94.1 para HVP y 67.7, 73.5 y 77.5 para HQ. No se observaron diferencias significativas (p< 0.05) en losCDAp entre niveles de inclusion en las tres materias primas investigadas. En cuanto a la fraccion energetica,los resultados para HP se observaron entre 53.0 % y 88.5 %, para HVP entre 52.6 y 59.7 y para HQ entre29.0 % y 66.1 %. El 30 % de inclusion de HP presento el mayor CDAe (p<0.05). Para HVP no hubodiferencias significativas entre niveles de inclusion; para HQ el CDAe fue significativamente menor (p<0.05) con el nivel de inclusion del 10 %.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".