Nutritional Analysis of Whole Green Crab, Carcinus maenas, for Application as a Fishmeal Replacer in Agrifeeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutritional composition of a composite sample of whole green crabs, Carcinus maenas (L.), was undertaken to evaluate efficacy as a forage fish replacement for seafood-meal manufacture. Whole green crabs sampled from New Hampshire waters were ground together and analyzed for proximate profile (moisture, lipid, protein, fiber, and ash), fatty acid profile, amino acid profile, mineral composition, and mercury content. Green crab mince contained 16.55 ± 0.29% ash, 12.27 ± 0.25% protein, and 0.21 ± 0.07% lipid, and comprised all amino acids essential for chickens and most species of fish. Fatty acid composition of ground green crab was 67.98% unsaturated, and 23.29% saturated, and was richer in eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) than docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Levels of mercury in green crab mince were below testable limits. The nutritional profile of green crab mince was evaluated relative to the nutritional profile of menhaden from the literature, and possible agrifeed applications for whole green crab were considered. Green crab showed great potential as a forage fish replacer in seafood-meal applications for chickens and ash tolerant species of fish.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".