MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025433312 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v9n3p53

Proximate Composition and Mineral Contents of Farmed and Wild Fish in Kenya

2020· article· en· W3025433312 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer K. Raymond, Arnold N. Onyango, Christine A. Onyango

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFish Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology
KeywordsNile tilapiaClarias gariepinusFish farmingProximateCatfishAnimal scienceFisheryTilapiaOreochromisBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>AquacultureFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kenyan government is promoting fish farming to boost fish supply and reduce rural poverty and malnutrition. This study was carried out to determine the differences between the chemical composition of wild and farmed fish particularly Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and African Catfish (Claris gariepinus) species. Wild fish were obtained from City market Nairobi, while farmed fish were obtained from selected ponds in Sagana and Kamulu (Kenya). Proximate composition, mineral and heavy metal content of the fish were determined using standard methods of analysis. Farmed fish contained significantly higher moisture content than the wild fish. Protein content in wild fish ranged from 21.9 &amp;ndash; 22.1 % compared to 16.0 &amp;ndash; 19.2 % in farmed fish. Fat content in wild fish ranged from 3.0 &amp;ndash; 3.8 % compared to 1.9 &amp;ndash; 4.8 % in farmed fish and ash from 1.8 &amp;ndash; 2.1 % in wild compared to 1.1 &amp;ndash; 1.5 % in farmed fish. The concentration of minerals in wild fish ranged from 2.8 &amp;ndash; 3.0 mg/100g of iron, 5.5 &amp;ndash; 5.6 mg/100g zinc, and 39.9 &amp;ndash; 43.8 mg/100g calcium compared to the lower values of 1.9 &amp;ndash; 2.4 mg/100g of iron, 28.2 &amp;ndash; 37.0 mg/100g calcium and 4.3 &amp;ndash; 5.0 mg/100g zinc in farmed fish respectively. Unfortunately, the wild fish was found to contain significantly higher concentrations of heavy metals as compared to the farmed fish (P &amp;lt; 0.05). From the results, it was evident that wild fish were nutritionally superior to the farmed fish but, they also contained significantly higher levels of toxic heavy metals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicFish Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207