Replacement of fishmeal by canola protein concentrate in diets fed to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dephytinized protein concentrate prepared from canola seed (CPC) was assessed for nutrient digestibility and performance in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The apparent digestibility coefficients of CPC were: dry matter, 817 g kg−1; crude protein, 899 g kg−1; gross energy, 861 g kg−1; arginine, 945 g kg−1; lysine, 935 g kg−1; methionine, 954 g kg−1; threonine, 893 g kg−1. A 9-week performance trial assessed 7 diets. Fishmeal provided 940 g kg−1 of the protein in the control diet. Test diets consisted of CPC or water-washed CPC replacing 500 and 750 g kg−1 of fishmeal protein; and CPC plus an attractant replacing 500 and 750 g kg−1 of fishmeal protein. No significant differences in performance were observed (P > 0.05). A subsequent 9-week performance trial evaluated the effect of adding CPC into compound diets containing fishmeal/soybean meal/corn gluten meal. Five diets were prepared: fishmeal provided 670 g kg−1 of the protein in the control diet, in the remaining diets CPC was incorporated into commercial-like trout diets at 100, 200 and 300 g kg−1 replacement of fishmeal protein, the fifth diet included an attractant in the 300 g kg−1 replacement diet. No significant differences in performance were obtained (P > 0.05). These studies show that dephytinized canola protein concentrate has potential to replace substantial levels of fishmeal in diets for carnivorous fish without compromising performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".