MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of replacing fish oil with stearine as main lipid source in diet on growth and survival of Pacific White Shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931)

2011· article· en· W1967646272 on OpenAlexaff
Zhi Yong Ju, Frank L. Castille, Dong‐Fang Deng, Warren G. Dominy, Addison L. Lawrence, Ian Forster

Bibliographic record

VenueAquaculture Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsShrimpLitopenaeusBiologyFish oilPelletAnimal scienceFisheryJuvenileSeawaterFood scienceFish <Actinopterygii>Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stearine fraction from raw fish oil refinement has been treated as a waste material. This study was conducted to evaluate effects of replacing prime refined fish oil with stearine as the main lipid source to a control diet on shrimp growth and survival as well as on pellet water stability of diets. Test diets were processed containing three levels (0.7%, 1.3% and 2.7%) of either stearine or refined fish oil in a semi-purified control diet. These diets were each assigned to five or six replicated tanks and each tank was stocked with seventeen juvenile shrimp (ca. 0.50 g) in an indoor seawater recirculating system. At the end of 6 weeks, the survival of shrimp was 89.4–95.3% with no significant difference (P > 0.05) among dietary treatments. The six test diets obtained significantly higher (P < 0.05) shrimp growth rates (1.46–1.83 g week−1) than the control diet (1.38 g week−1). The shrimp that were fed the three stearine-added diets exhibited high growth rates (1.75–1.83 g week−1). Increasing the inclusion level of the stearine improved pellet water stability (91.7–93.9%; P < 0.05). These results suggest that stearine can replace fish oil in shrimp feed based on the growth performance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquaculture ResearchSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207