Reduction of carotenoids in corn gluten meal: Effects on growth performance and muscle pigmentation of rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saez, P. J., Abdel-Aal, E. M. and Bureau, D. P. 2015. Reduction of carotenoids in corn gluten meal: Effects on growth performance and muscle pigmentation of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 79–92. Corn gluten meal (CGM) is an ingredient widely included in aquaculture feeds. The use of significant levels of CGM in diet formulation has been anecdotally related to the suboptimal pigmentation of the muscle of salmonid fish. The results of a few scientific studies that have examined the effect of CGM on muscle pigmentation in salmonids remain inconclusive. Therefore, a bench-scale study was carried out to reduce the content of yellow xanthophyll carotenoids in CGM using white soy flake flour as a bleaching agent. A 12-wk growth trial was then conducted to assess the effects of treated CGM on growth and muscle pigmentation of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in comparison with regular CGM. Results of the pigment reduction study indicated that the concentration of lutein, zeaxanthin, β-cryptoxanthin and β-carotene was reduced by 86, 97, 100 and 100%, respectively, in the treated CGM. Results of the growth trial showed that the inclusion of treated or regular CGM in the diet did not significantly affect growth performance. However a significant (P<0.05) reduction in astaxanthin deposition was observed in the muscle of fish fed the diet supplemented with 190 g kg−1 of regular CGM when compared with the fish fed the control diet (0 g kg−1 of CGM). The muscle of fish fed the diet containing 190 g kg −1 of treated CGM showed the lowest astaxanthin deposition. This could be attributed to the presence of reactive peroxy radicals produced during the reduction of carotenoids in the treated CGM. Further research is underway to improve the processing method for the reduction of carotenoids in CGM.
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) | 0.000 | 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".