Effects of dietary lipid level on liver and muscle lipid deposition in juvenile haddock, <i>Melanogrammus aeglefinus</i> L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of dietary lipid levels on growth, feed utilization, hepatosomatic index (HSI), liver lipid deposition and tissue fatty acid composition in haddock were investigated. Triplicate tanks of juvenile haddock (6.9 g) were fed graded levels of herring oil to supply 14, 16, 19 and 22% lipid (DM, dry matter) in fish meal-based, isonitrogenous diets. Growth and feed conversion ratio of juvenile haddock was not significantly (P < 0.05) affected by increasing the lipid content of the diet. A significant increase in HSI (9.8–12.1%), total liver lipid (63.2–69.0%) and whole body gross energy content (6.03–6.39 kcal g−1 DM) were observed in haddock fed 14% vs. 22% lipid. Although the HSI of these cultured haddock was high in comparison to wild gadoids, histological analyses of these haddock livers did not reveal any overt pathology. Muscle lipid levels (1.0%) did not increase significantly with dietary lipid. Liver fatty acid levels mirrored dietary fatty acid (FA) composition. The muscle consisted mainly of polar lipid (84.3 ± 2.5% of total lipid) and a large proportion (52.6 ± 0.8%) of polyunsaturated FA. A dietary lipid level of 14% DM or less is recommended for juvenile haddock.
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 | 0.001 | 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".