Feed intake, growth, and behavioral assessment of mink fed a clam-based diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the acceptance and safety of two species of food-grade clams, ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) and Atlantic surf clam (Spisula solidissima), for consumption by fur-farmed American mink (Neovison vison). These clams contained thiaminase that can lead to weight loss, paralysis, and death. Across 19 wk, 39 black, adult female mink divided into three groups were fed a standard chicken-based control diet, 10% clam diet, or 20% clam diet and assessed for feed consumption rates, body weights, locomotor stereotypic behavior, overall activity levels, and ability to complete a novel tunnel climbing task. The 20% clam group consumed significantly less metabolizable energy compared with the control group, but there was no significant difference in weight gain between groups. There were some inconsistent group differences in stereotypy and overall activity with all groups showing significant behavioral differences across study weeks; possibly related to ambient weather and photoperiod. There were no significant group differences in their ability to complete the tunnel task. Based on our results, no negative effect of clam consumption was observed in adult female mink, but further studies are needed to determine clam safety to both male and female mink from all life stages.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".