MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032084728 · doi:10.1111/anu.12208

Effect of dietary phytic acid and semi-purified lignin on energy storage indices, growth performance, nutrient and energy partitioning of rainbow trout,<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>

2014· article· en· W2032084728 on OpenAlexaff
M.A. Kabir Chowdhury, T. Martie, Dominique Bureau

Bibliographic record

VenueAquaculture Nutrition · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRainbow troutLigninMethionineBiologyPhytic acidNutrientFood scienceTryptophanThreonineAnimal scienceBiochemistryAmino acidBotanyFish <Actinopterygii>SerineEcologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of dietary phytic acid (PA) and semi-purified lignin, and their interactions on growth performance, energy storage indices, nutrient deposition and partitioning in rainbow trout were studied in a 12-week growth trial. Six isoproteic and isoenergetic diets were formulated differing only in their PA and lignin concentrations. In these diets, five essential amino acids: histidine, lysine, methionine (+ cysteine), threonine and tryptophan were formulated to be marginally adequate to the dietary requirement. Fish were pair-fed with the amount of feed adjusted on a weekly basis. Among the performance indicators, dietary PA levels affected only the Fulton's body condition index (FCI) and whole carcass nitrogen retention efficiency (NRE; P < 0.05). On the contrary, lignin did not affect the whole carcass protein deposition (PD) and NRE but the lipid deposition (LD; P < 0.05), lipid retention efficiency (LRE; P < 0.01) and PD-LD ratio (P < 0.05). Neither lignin nor phytic acid affected any parameters in dressed carcass and in viscera of rainbow trout except the visceral LD, which was affected only by the PA-lignin interactions (P < 0.05).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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