Rearing of Burbot, Lota lota (Pisces, Teleostei), Larvae with Zooplankton and Formulated Microdiets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different feeding methods were tested for burbot, Lota lota, larvae. In small scale experiments with 300 larvae per treatment grinded artemia flakes, enriched artemia flakes, artemia flakes supplemented with dried algae (Chlorella sp., Spirulina sp.) and formulated microdiets consisting of different combinations of fishmeal, fish oil, soybean lecithin, casein, dextran, and artemia flakes were fed over a period of 30 days. These foods were compared to live zooplankton food collected from the nature. After 30 days, only feeding with live zooplankton resulted in high survival rates > 80%. No survival was observed with artificial microdiets. The 15 d survival of larvae was significantly lowest with agar agar bound microparticles and with formulated diets containing > 7% soya lecithin and > 3 % fish oil. The live zooplankton feeding method was also tested in a large scale experiment with 25,000 larvae per tank for a period of 100 d. After 100 d the larvae survival rate was > 65 %, and the body length had increased for circa 6-fold.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".