Protein Quality of Rations for Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Containing Oilseed Meals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering price as the main limiting factor in the use of animal proteins, this study evaluated the protein quality of diets for Nile tilapia containing oilseed meals as replacements of fishmeal. A control diet (FMBD) (30% crude protein and 2900 Kcal DE/kg) was formulated using fishmeal (FM), soybean meal (SBM), canola meal (CM) and sunflower meal (SFM). The test diets SBBD, CMBD and SFBD were formulated by replacing 10% CP of FM by SBM, CM and SFM, respectively. The amino acid profile was determined by MPA FT-NIR spectrometer (Bruker, Germany). Fishmeal recorded higher levels (p < 0.05) of lysine (7.81 mg/100 g), methionine (2.89 mg/100 g), arginine (5.87 mg/100 g), threonine (4.28 mg/100 g) and isoleucine (4.55 mg/100 g). The chemical score for all essential amino acid in fishmeal were higher than 100. Sunflower meal was a superior (p < 0.05) protein source with an essential amino acid index (EAAI) of 1.14 compared to CM (0.80) and SBM (0.70). Substituting FM with SBM, CM or SFM, reduced (p < 0.05) the levels of all amino acids apart from methionine which was increased (p < 0.05) in the diet with SBM substitute. In all diets, methionine and isoleucine were the first and second limiting amino acids, respectively. Though the diet containing FM exhibited higher (p < 0.05) EAAI (0.97), it was not satisfactory because it was limiting in methionine. The EAAI reduced (p < 0.05) with replacement of fishmeal by SBM (0.78), CM (0.77) and SFM (0.76). The study showed that the control diet had good quality protein and substitution with SBM, CM and SFM gave useful protein diets.
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) | 0.001 | 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".