Adequately Defining the Amino Acid Requirements of Fish: The Case Example of Lysine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical review of the literature highlights significant discrepancies in the estimates and modes of expression ofamino acid requirements. Using lysine as a case example, this paper highlights some of these discrepancies andpotential limitations of current approaches.Published estimates of lysine requirements for rainbow trout varied from 1.3 – 2.9 % of the diet and NRC (1993)estimated lysine requirement at 1.8% of the diet. Results from recent studies and detailed data analysis suggest thatlysine requirement to maximize weight gain is about 2.3% of the diet in rainbow trout, where requirement tomaximize protein gain of this species appears to be closer to 2.7% of the diet. These estimates are significantlyhigher and appear more appropriate (robust) than the lysine requirement proposed by NRC (1993).Different modes of expression of lysine requirement are used, often interchangeably, in the literature. It is importantto understand that these different modes of expression are based on different assumptions and that the use ofdifferent modes of expression will result in dramatically different recommendations, especially since aquaculturefeeds are formulated to widely different nutritional specifications (protein, energy, etc.). Studies suggest thatexpressing lysine requirement as a function of digestible energy or protein contents of the diet is not appropriate.Studies have also indicated that “newer” approaches of estimating amino acid requirements (e.g., factorial aminoacid requirement, ideal protein concept), widely used in poultry and swine nutrition, may have significant pitfallswhen used in fish nutrition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".