MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimizing Prepared Feed Ration for Gonad Production of the Green Sea Urchin <i>Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis</i>

2002· article· en· W2025695178 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher M. Pearce, Tara L. Daggett, Shawn Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the World Aquaculture Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStrongylocentrotus droebachiensisKelpGonadBiologySea urchinAnimal scienceBody weightLaminariaKelp forestFisheryMealBotanyAnatomyEcologyFood scienceAlgaeEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Adult green sea urchins Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis were fed three different quantities (0.25, 0.50, 1.00% body weight/d) of a prepared feed during a 12‐wk experiment to determine the effect of food ration on gonad quantity and quality. A diet of kelp, Laminaria longicruris and/or L. digitata , fed at satiation (3% body weight/d) and urchins taken from the wild at the beginning and end of the experiment served as controls. Urchins fed prepared feed or kelp increased their percent gonad yield significantly over the experimental period. Affer 12 wk, individuals fed the prepared diet at 0.50 or 1.00% body weighffd had significantly higher percent gonad yields (mean ± SEM: 23.5 ± 0.6% and 23.4 ± 0.7%, respectively) than urchins fed at 0.25% body weight/d (18.0 ± 1.0%) or control animals given kelp (18.3 ± 0.8%). There was no significant difference in gonad yield between the 0.50 and 1.00% feeding levels. All feeding treatments had significantly higher percent gonad yields than urchins sampled from the wild at the end of the experiment that had recently spawned (2.8 ± 0.5%). There was no significant difference in gonad taste among urchins fed the prepared diet at 0.25% body weight/d, those given kelp, or those collected from the wild at the end of the experiment (good to very good ratings), but all of these treatments had significantly better tasting gonads than urchins given the prepared feed at 0.50 or 1.00% body weight/d (satisfactory ratings). Gonad taste rating of urchins fed a prepared diet was dependent on ration with greater feed amounts leading to worse tasting gonads (linear regression: r 2 = 0.68, P &lt; 0.01). Gonad color, texture, and firmness did not differ significantly among any of the feed ration treatments or kelp control. Results suggest that the best ration for prepared feed would be 0.50% body weightld since this would optimize gonad yield while minimizing feed costs. Further research on prepared feeds is required to optimize both gonad color and taste.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations51
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the World Aquaculture SocietySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207