MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of partial or total replacement of fish meal with freeze-dried krill (Euphausia superba) on growth and nutrient utilization of juvenile Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) fed the same practical diets

2010· article· en· W2121935181 on OpenAlexaff
Sean M. Tibbetts, Rolf Erik Olsen, Santosh P. Lall

Bibliographic record

VenueAquaculture Nutrition · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Marine Biosciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHalibutHippoglossus hippoglossusGadusBiologyKrillAtlantic codFisheryEuphausiaMealFish mealNutrientAnimal scienceFood scienceFish <Actinopterygii>Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies were conducted with juvenile (28 g) Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) fed fish meal (FM) based diets with partial (0%, 25%, 50% and 75%) or total (100%) replacement of FM with freeze-dried krill (FDK). Addition of dietary FDK significantly stimulated feeding activity in both species and resulted in higher feed consumption and intakes of digestible protein (DP) and energy (DE). This is a significant finding on the feed attractant properties of FDK because it occurred despite having 2–4 MJ kg−1 higher levels of DE in the FDK diets which could have had an intake suppression effect. In addition, it indicates that the soluble protein fraction of krill thought to be responsible for its attractant properties and is routinely lost or greatly reduced during commercial processing of krill meals, is retained by freeze-drying. Supplementation of FDK significantly improved growth rates, digestibility and nutrient utilization. Levels exceeding 25–50% FM replacement, however, generally did not significantly increase growth performance or nutrient utilization. In addition, feed formulations with high FDK (>75% replacement) are likely to be cost-prohibitive as long as the market price remains higher than FM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquaculture NutritionSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207