Investigating Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) as a Novel Feed Ingredient for Diets of Farmed Carnivorous Fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 60% of natural fish stocks are either fully‐exploited or overexploited. This declining productivity has led to the rapid growth of the aquaculture industry, or the farming of fish. All fish require a certain level of protein from marine sources, most often provided in the form of fishmeal. Fishmeal is produced using species from the low end of the food chain, such as menhaden or sardine, which usually have low market value. Carnivorous species, such as salmon and trout, are particularly popular in Western markets, but also demand relatively more wild inputs than omnivores/herbivores. While species of the latter, such as carp and catfish, are popular in Asia, they maintain low commercial value in North America. Carp was thus investigated as a source of fishmeal for the growth of a carnivorous species, Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Fish were grown in three separate treatment groups, each being fed either a commercial sinking pellet, a unique pellet with commercial herring meal, or a unique pellet with carp meal. Upon determination of crude protein and energy content of the carp meal, diets were balanced on a crude protein and digestible energy basis. Pellets were made using a meat grinder. Trout were fed pellets with an increasing carp meal:herring meal ratio, and palatabilty was determined using the amount of pellets consumed (g) per mean mass of rainbow trout group (g).
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".