Physicochemical composition and digestibility of silages from fishery residues in the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physicochemical composition and in vivo digestibility of chemical and biological silages of fishery residues were determined in Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) (Linnaeus 1758). The chemical silage was prepared with 2 % of sulfuric acid, 98 and 1 % of formic acid (p/v), and the biological with 12 % beet sugar and 3 % yogurt ( Lactobacillus bulgaris (p/p)). The fishes (141.64 + 28.68 g of average weight and 25.91+ 1.70 cm length) were randomly distributed, according to one-way model, into three triplicate treatments (a diet of reference and two experimental diets with each silage). Chromium oxide was used as inert indicator. Feces were collected by decantation in cylinder-conic tanks, of the type Guelph modified. The chemical composition showed that the protein contents of the silages (52.1 y 38.3 %) diminished (P < 0.001) compared with the fresh residues (60.2 %), due to the addition of preservatives in the end product. The digestibility of the nutrients differed according to the silage type. Protein was higher (P < 0.001) in the chemical silage (86.1 %), whereas dry matter (80.34 %), lipids (98.65 %), phosphorus (56.5 %), and energy (87.28 %) were higher in the biological. Ash digestibility did not differ between the silages (51.1 and 54.1 %). It is concluded that the silages of fishery residues varied their chemical composition, but did not change their nutritional value, thereby being an alternative protein source in the formulation of rations for the Atlantic salmon. Key words: digestibility, fishery silages, salmon, nutritive value
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".