MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033394120 · doi:10.1242/jeb.00990

Dogmas and controversies in the handling of nitrogenous wastes: Is exogenous ammonia a growth stimulant in fish?

2004· article· en· W2033394120 on OpenAlexaff
Chris M. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulantFish <Actinopterygii>AmmoniaChemistryBiologyFisheryBiochemistryPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally, waterborne ammonia is considered a toxicant that decreases productivity in aquaculture. However, several recent studies have suggested, but not proven, that growth of salmonids might actually be stimulated by chronic exposure to very low levels of ammonia. In the present study, two 70-71 day growth experiments were conducted under rigorously controlled experimental conditions with juvenile rainbow trout at total ammonia concentrations ([T(Amm)])=0, 70 and 225 micro mol l(-1), pH 7.6. In the first series, a small-scale laboratory proof-of-principle study at 15 degrees C, there was a significant stimulation of mass gain, gross food conversion efficiency, condition factor and protein production per fish at [T(Amm)]=70 micro mol l(-1), without an increase in voluntary food consumption or change in 'in-tank' O(2) consumption or ammonia excretion rates. These growth stimulatory effects were not seen at [T(Amm)]=225 micro mol l(-1), where the fish consumed more food, and excreted more ammonia, yet achieved the same mass and protein content as the controls. In the second series, a larger study conducted in an aquaculture facility at 6.5 degrees C, growth rate, conversion efficiency and protein production per fish over 71 days were all significantly stimulated at [T(Amm)]=225 micro mol l(-1), but not at 70 micro mol l(-1), without any change in voluntary food consumption. These effects occurred despite an early inhibition of growth at both [T(Amm)] levels. When ration was restricted, growth was reduced and there were no longer any differential effects attributable to [T(Amm)]. While the effective levels of [T(Amm)] differed between the two series, in both, the P(NH(3)) level stimulating growth was approximately 23 micro torr. The results are interpreted as reflecting either a stimulation of ammonia incorporation into amino acids and protein synthesis and/or a reduction in metabolic costs. The finding that low levels of exogenous ammonia can serve as a growth stimulant without altering food consumption may be important for aquacultural practice, and challenges traditional dogma that the effects of ammonia are detrimental to growth.

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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
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

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207