Apparent digestibility comparison in rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>) assessed using three methods of faeces collection and three digestibility markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments were undertaken to investigate the apparent digestibility coefficient (ADC) of a range of macro- and micronutrients in rainbow trout using three external digestibility markers (chromic oxide, acid insoluble ash and titanium dioxide, alone or in combination), and three methods of faeces collection (modified Guelph system, St-Pee system and abdominal massage; hereafter referred to as ‘column’, ’collect’ and ‘strip’, respectively). For each method of faeces collection, three replicate tanks of fish were acclimated for 5 days to a practical diet containing the external marker followed by 5 days of faeces collection. Both marker type and collection method significantly influenced ADC estimate in a similar manner for dry matter, protein, nitrogen-free extract, ash and energy. The ADC was consistently highest for the column and lowest for the strip methods of collection, and titanium dioxide gave higher ADCs vs. the other markers. Lipid ADC did not differ between the column and collect methods, but collection of faeces by the strip method gave lower ADCs, irrespective of marker type. In general, nutrient ADC was higher with the combined markers than when single markers were employed. The influence of marker type and collection method was less clear for the individual minerals studied.
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) | 0.000 | 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".