MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997466512 · doi:10.1093/jas/skz258.137

65 Sustainability of fish-derived feed inputs: an ecological perspective

2019· article· en· W2997466512 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Tyedmers, Tim Cashion, Robert Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcological footprintEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)Trophic levelSustainabilityEcosystemGreenhouse gasCarbon footprintProductivityPrimary producersFishingMarine ecosystemEcologyFisheryNutrientBiologyPhytoplankton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fishmeals and fish oils (FMFOs) sourced traditionally from directed fisheries and increasingly from seafood processing by-product streams, are important sources of key nutrients in animal diets. While attention is understandably paid to the relative nutritional attributes and prices of FMFOs, little consideration is typically paid to the resource utilization and environmental performance attributes of these products, beyond attending to the management status of source fisheries. This is somewhat surprising, however, given the diversity of species and ecosystems from which FMFOs are derived, their relative abundance, the technologies used in their capture, and energy sources used in their processing. Here, we present results of analyses of the greenhouse gas emission intensity (carbon footprint) and area of marine ecosystem to support the primary productivity required to sustain production of the species-specific biomass required (marine ecological footprint) to yield a tonne of fishmeal or oil for 18 distinct combinations of species, source ecosystem and fishing gear used to produce fishmeal and oil. Analyses of the carbon footprint of meals and oils included direct combustion and related upstream GHG emissions associated with direct fuel inputs to fishing along with emissions from processing-related fuel and electricity inputs. Analyses of the marine ecological footprint of meals and oils accounted for the trophic level of the source species as well as the source ecosystem-specific trophic transfer efficiency and average annual primary productivity. Results indicate that the carbon footprint of FMFOs varied by an order of magnitude while the marine ecological footprint of meals and oils varied by four orders of magnitude amongst the sources assessed. Given these substantial environmental and ecological performance differences between many widely traded FMFOs, there is substantial scope for feed formulators to construct and market low environmental impact feeds while maintaining nutritional and cost profiles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207