Apparent digestibility of selected ingredients in diets for juvenile grouper, Epinephelus coioides (Hamilton)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apparent digestibility coefficients (ADCs) for dry matter (ADCdm) and crude protein (ADCcp) of selected feed ingredients were determined in vivo for grouper using passive faeces collection (Guelph System). A reference diet (RF) and test diets (consisted of 70% RF and 30% test ingredient) with 1% Cr2O3 as an inert indicator were used. An RF contained 45% protein, 10% fat and 15.7 kJ g−1 metabolizable energy. Three isonitrogenous and isocaloric diets, each contained a test ingredient (white fish meal, white cowpea meal and ipil-ipil leaf meal), were used in a growth study based on ADCcp of feed ingredients. An RF without Cr2O3 was a control. The ADC values of experimental diets were also determined. In grouper, the ADCdm of white cowpea meal, defatted soybean meal, wheat flour and shrimp meal (74–76%) were significantly lower than that of squid meal (99%), but comparable with those of the fish meals (84–89%). No significant difference was observed between the ADCdm of ipil-ipil leaf meal, rice bran and wheat flour (56–73%). The ADCcp of white cowpea meal and defatted soybean meal were similar to those of the fish meals, squid meal and shrimp meal (94–99%). The ADCcp of wheat flour was comparable with that of ipil-ipil leaf meal (79–83%). Rice bran had the lowest ADCcp value of 43%. Based on specific growth rate (SGR), the growth of fish fed white cowpea meal-based diets was similar to that of the control fish (3.2–3.3% day−1). Also, no significant difference was observed between the ADCdm (68–72%) and ADCcp (88–91%) of white cowpea meal-based diet and the control diet. The results suggest that ADC values can be used as indicators to determine the nutritional value of feed ingredients. White cowpea meal can be incorporated as a protein source in practical diet for grouper at 20.5% of the diet with no adverse effect on 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".