Effects of dietary protein and lipid levels and DP DE-1 ratio on growth, feed utilization and hepatosomatic index of juvenile haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Juvenile haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus L. (initial weight, 13.5 ± 0.1 g) were fed practical diets containing digestible protein to digestible energy (DP DE−1) ratios of 25–30 g DP MJ DE−1as-fed using three protein levels (450, 500 and 550 g kg−1) each at two lipid levels (110 and 160 g kg−1) for 63 days. The results showed mean weight gain and feed conversion ratio were highest for diets containing 28.5 and 30.2 g DP MJ DE−1. DP DE−1 ratio had no significant effect on protein efficiency ratio except at the lowest level (24.7 g DP MJ DE−1) indicating a protein sparing effect of higher lipid when dietary protein is below the requirement. Haddock appears to preferentially use protein as the prime source of DE. DP DE−1 ratio had little effect on apparent digestibility (AD) of protein while AD of lipid was significantly affected. Significant differences in AD of energy and organic matter were found to be inversely related to the carbohydrate level of the diet. DP DE−1 ratios of 28.5 g DP MJ DE−1 or lower resulted in significantly higher hepatosomatic indexes. The highest whole-body nitrogen gains and energy retention efficiencies were achieved at 28.5 and 30.2 g DP MJ DE−1, whereas only slight differences in nitrogen retention efficiencies were observed. The highest levels of energy retained in the form of protein were achieved at 28.5 and 30.2 g DP MJ DE−1. The diet that provided the best growth, feed utilization and digestibility with minimal HSI contained 546 g kg−1 protein (513 g kg−1 DP), 114 g kg−1 lipid, 164 g kg−1 carbohydrate, 17.0 MJ kg DE−1 and a DP DE−1 ratio of 30.2 g DP MJ DE−1.
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) | 0.001 | 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".