Utilization of thin distillers' solubles as a palatability enhancer in rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>) diets containing canola meal or air-classified pea protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two short-term palatability experiments indicated that supplementation of diets containing 15.0% of canola meal or 30.5% of air-classified pea protein with 3.3% or 3.9% thin distillers' solubles (dry matter basis), respectively, increased feed intake (P < 0.05) of rainbow trout over a 4-day period. Supplementation of the same diets with 6.6% or 1.9% thin distillers' solubles, respectively, did not increase feed intake (P > 0.05). Supplementation of the diets with 1.0% of a commercial palatability enhancer did not increase feed intake (P > 0.05). A subsequent 12-week growth experiment evaluated the long-term feed intake enhancing capability of thin distillers' solubles. Supplementation of diets containing 20.0% of air-classified pea protein or 20.0% of canola meal fines with thin distillers' solubles (4.0%, dry matter basis) over a 12-week period had no effect on feed intake or growth of rainbow trout fed either diet (P > 0.05). The reduction in the palatability enhancing ability of thin distillers' solubles may be the result of the fish becoming accustomed to the taste of this product over a longer feeding period, or because of the possible destruction or alteration of the amino acids involved in gustatory stimulation during thermal processing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".