Effect of feeding rate on nutrient digestibility in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A digestibility trial was conducted to examine the effect of feeding rate on dry matter, gross energy, crude protein and phosphorus digestibility in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Duplicate groups of fish were fed 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25 and 1.9% BW/day. The faeces were collected by Guelph-type collectors for five successive days. Dry matter, protein and phosphorus digestibility’s were all significantly (p<0.05) affected by feeding rate. Dry matter digestibility was significantly lower in fish fed 0.25% BW day in comparison with fish fed 0.5, 0.75 and 1% BW day. Protein digestibility was significantly lower in fish fed 0.25% BW/day in comparison with 1.25% BW day. Phosphorus digestibility was significantly lower in fish fed 0.25% BW/day in comparison with all other treatments except for 1%BW day. There were no significant differences for energy digestibility between fish fed with different amount of feed. The main effect was reduced digestibility at the lowest level of intake with no obvious relationship between feeding rate and digestibility above this amount. This was explained by a relatively higher loss of endogenous faecal nitrogen and phosphorus at sub-maintenance feeding.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".