Amino acid composition of Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.) and the prediction of dietary requirements for essential amino acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embryo somatic tissues, non-somatic yolk-sac materials, and whole, individual fingerlings (age 0+) of Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.), as well as a commercial trout diet, were analysed for a wide spectrum of amino acids. Analytical material consisted of prefeeding swim-up fry that were separated into discrete yolk sac and somatic embryo tissue samples. Amino acid concentrations in fry somatic tissue and whole fingerlings were generally very similar to each other, but were lower than those measured in yolk materials. Higher correlations were observed between the majority of specific amino acid concentrations in the trout diet when compared with fingerling data (r2 = 0.91) and fry somatic tissue data (r2 = 0.89), than when correlated with fry yolk sac material (r2 = 0.76). These results indicate that the essential amino acid profiles of fry somatic tissue and whole fingerlings are closer to that of a commercial feed than they are to the endogenous profiles found in the embryonic yolk sac material itself. The dietary ratios of individual essential amino acids were also compared with the total essential amino acid concentrations (A/E ratios) in whole fingerling tissues, and these ratios could be used to accurately estimate the apparent essential amino acid requirements of Arctic charr. The rationale for using carcass amino acid composition data to estimate the dietary essential amino acid requirements of Arctic charr 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".