Mineral nutrition of haddock <i>Melanogrammus aeglefinus</i>(L.): a comparison of wild and cultured stock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The macro and trace mineral composition of vertebrae and muscle in wild and cultured haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus was determined. Results indicated that haddock deposit c . 10% higher amounts of mineral than salmonids. Based on distribution between the analysed tissues as well as concentration differences, the minerals in wild and cultured haddock were divided into four categories: (1) As, Mn, Na, S and Zn concentration did not show any significant ( P > 0·05) variation in both muscle and vertebrae; (2) Cr, Co, Mg, Mo and Si concentrations in wild and culture stocks muscle did not vary but vertebrae concentration showed significant differences ( P < 0·05); (3) Ca and Cu concentration varied in muscle while remaining the same in vertebrae; (4) Al, Ba, Fe, P, K and Sr concentration showed a significant difference in both muscle and vertebrae. Vertebrae P content of cultured haddock was lower than that of wild fish whereas muscle P content was relatively high in cultured fish. Vertebrae and muscle Fe content of cultured haddock was significantly higher than in wild fish. The Mg, K, Co and Cr concentrations in vertebrae were significantly higher in wild haddock than in cultured fish, whereas Mo and Al levels were low. These differences in trace element composition of wild and cultured haddock were probably related to differences in food source and therefore the mineral composition of the diet. The nutritional significance of these findings is discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".