Bioavailability of arginine from Indian mustard protein concentrate and meal compared with that of a soy protein concentrate in rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchys mykiss</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative bioavailability (RBV) of arginine (Arg) from Indian mustard protein concentrate (IMC, 62% crude protein) and Indian mustard meal (IMM, 42% crude protein), and a commercially available soy protein concentrate (SPC, 57% crude protein) was compared with that of crystalline L-arginine (L-Arg) in rainbow trout. A basal diet highly deficient in Arg (1.23%) was formulated. Eight other isoproteic and isoenergetic diets were formulated to contain ~1.35% and ~1.5% Arg by adding increasing amount of IMC, IMM, SPC and L-Arg. The experimental diets were fed for 16 weeks using a standard protocol. Growth rate, weight gain (g fish−1) and protein (PD, g fish−1) and lipid (LD, g fish−1) deposition were increased linearly with increasing level of Arg from all ingredients. Arg availability from protein-bound sources were equal or higher than those from L-Arg. RBV of Arg from IMC, IMM and SPC were ranged from 100% and 123% than that from L-Arg (assumed as 100% bio-available). Among the ingredients, only the RBV of Arg from IMC was significantly higher than those from SPC (P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the RBV of Arg from IMC and IMM are very good and comparable to that of the commercial SPC used in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".