Poultry By-Product Meals as Partial Fish Meal Replacement Yielded Higher Somatic Growth in Alsatian Charr (<i>Salvelinus alpinus X fontinalis</i>) than Pork or Vegetable-Based Fish Meals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freshwater salmonids gain increasing popularity as diet fish and are an important dietary source of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for humans. The aim of this study was to investigate effects of alternative feeds from domestic sources on fish growth and lipid composition of the sparctic Alsatian charr (Salvelinus alpinus X fontinalis), commonly used in freshwater aquaculture in Europe. In this fish feeding experiment, we used a control feed (32% fish meal; feed F1) and experimental diets containing generally only half the amount of fish meal, which was replaced in equal parts by poultry (F2), two different pork by-product meals (F3 and F4), plant-based feeds (F5), or by a feed containing 25% fish and 15% poultry meal (F6) that had a similar caloric value compared to the other feeds. Six hundred charrs of similar initial weight (ca. 90 g) were randomly distributed into 12 tanks (50/tank) of 1.4 m3, supplied with subalpine spring water, and fed one of the feeds. Fish biomass development was the highest in fish fed diet F6, followed by F1, F2, and F5. Pork by-product meals as partial replacement of fish meal resulted on average in a 25% lower biomass gain compared to charr feeding on poultry by-product meal (F6). The use of poultry or pork by-product meals as partial fish meal replacements did not significantly change the total lipids or fatty acids retained in these fish. This study shows that these alternative feeds, with similar lipid sources, had no significant effect on the fatty acid composition in Alsatian charr, however, poultry by-product meal as partial replacement of marine fish meal clearly enhanced charr biomass by 15% relative to conventional fish meals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".