Growth and efficiency of feed usage by Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fed diets with different dietary protein: Energy ratios at two feeding levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of dietary digestible protein/digestible energy (DP/DE) ratios and feeding level on growth, feed efficiency, nutrient and energy usage by Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar; initial body weight, 7.0 g/fish) at 15°C was investigated in a 16-week feeding trial. Three diets, differing in their DP and DE contents, namely 37/18 (regular diet, RD), 37/21 (high fat diet, HF) and 44/ 22 (high nutrient-dense diet, HND) g/MJ of dry feed were formulated. DP/DE ratios were 20, 18 and 20 g/MJ for the RD, HF and HND diets, respectively. Salmon were hand-fed three times a day at either 100% or 85% of the feed requirement estimated by a bioenergetics model. At each feeding level, DE intake (kJ/fish) was similar for all three diets. Diet composition did not affect growth rate. However, increasing the digestible energy density from 18 to 22 MJ/kg of dry feed resulted in a significant increase (P<0.05) in feed efficiency. Restricting feed intake significantly decreased live body weight gains for all diets. However, feed efficiency was not affected by feeding level. Diet composition and feeding level did not affect carcass composition and nutrient and energy usage, with the exception of a higher (P<0.05) carcass lipid of fish fed the HF100 diet compared with the fish fed the RD and HND diets and a higher (P<0.05) lipid gain (g/fish) of fish fed the HF100 diet compared with fish fed all the diets at the restricted feeding level. Restricting feeding resulted in significantly lower (P<0.05) energy gain (kJ/fish) compared with fish fed at 100%. Increasing the DE and nutrient density of the diet had no effect on growth but improved feed efficiency and lowered solid wastes (g of solid wastes per kg of fish produced) while dissolved wastes were not affected by dietary ormulation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".