Digestibilidad aparente de materia seca, proteína y energía de harina de vísceras de pollo, quinua y harina de pescado en tilapia nilótica, Oreochromis niloticus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Titulo en ingles:Apparent digestibility of dry matter, protein and energy regarding fish meal, poultry by-product meal and quinua for Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus.RESUMEN: El presente estudio se realizó con el objeto de determinar los coeficientes de digestibilidad aparente (CDA) de la proteína (CDAp) y de la energía (CDAe) de harina de pescado (HP), harina de vísceras de pollo (HVP) y harina de quinua Chenopodium quinoa (HQ), para tilapia nilótica Oreochromis niloticus. Para estimar los coeficientes se utilizó el método indirecto con marcador (óxido de cromo), colectando las heces por el sistema Guelph modificado. Tilapias con peso promedio de 130 gr se alimentaron con una dieta experimental constituida por dieta referencia (DR) (89.5 %, 79.5 % ó 69.5 %), 0.5 % de marcador inerte y el ingrediente a evaluar en un nivel de inclusión de 10 %, 20 % ó 30 %. Las heces comenzaron a colectarse 10 horas después de suministrar el alimento, cada hora durante 12 horas; las muestras se secaron a una temperatura de 60ºC y se almacenaron a –17°C hasta ser analizadas. Los CDAp para los tres niveles de inclusión (10, 20 y 30 %) fueron respectivamente: 88.1, 89.4 y 90.9 % para HP; 96.8, 94.9 y 94.1 para HVP y 67.7, 73.5 y 77.5 para HQ. No se observaron diferencias significativas (p< 0.05) en los CDAp entre niveles de inclusión en las tres materias primas investigadas. En cuanto a la fracción energética, los resultados para HP se observaron entre 53.0 % y 88.5 %, para HVP entre 52.6 y 59.7 y para HQ entre 29.0 % y 66.1 %. El 30 % de inclusión de HP presentó el mayor CDAe (p<0.05). Para HVP no hubo diferencias significativas entre niveles de inclusión; para HQ el CDAe fue significativamente menor (p<0.05) con el nivel de inclusión del 10 %.Palabras claves: Coeficientes de digestibilidad aparente, nutrición, materias alternativas, análisis proximal.ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine protein (ADCp) and energy (ADCe) apparent digestibility coefficients (ADC) for fish meal (FM), poultry by-product meal (PBM) and quinoa flour (Chenopodium quinoa) (QF) used in feeding Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). The indirect method with a chromium oxide marker was used to estimate the aforementioned ADC; faeces were collected by the modified Guelph system. Tilapias having an average 130 g weight were fed on an experimental diet consisting of reference diet (RD) (89.5 %, 79.5 % or 69.5 %), 0.5 % inert marker (chromium dioxide) and the ingredient to be evaluated to assess 10 %, 20 % or 30 % inclusion level. The fish were fed every hour for 12 hours per day and their faeces were collected 10 hours after the fish had been fed; the samples were dried at 60ºC and stored at -17°C until analysed. Chromium oxide level was determined by the acid digestion method. The ADCp for the three inclusion levels (10 % 20 % and 30 %) were respectively: 88.1 %, 89.4 % and 90.9 % for FM, 96.8 %, 94.9 % and 94.1 % for PBM and 67.7 %, 73.5 % and 77.5 % for QF. There were no significant differences (p<0.05) concerning ADCp inclusion levels regarding the three materials being investigated. As for ADCe, the results ranged from 53.0 % to 88.5 % for FM, 52.6 % to 59.7 % for PBM and 29.0 % to 66.1 % for QF. Including 30 % FM had the highest ADCe (p> 0.05); there were no significant differences between PBM inclusion levels and QF was significantly lower (10 % inclusion level).Key words: Apparent digestibility coefficient, nutrition, alternative matter, proximate analysis.
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".