Effects of insect meals on fish digestibility, blood parameters, and economic performance: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This review examines the use of insect meal (IM) as a substitute for fishmeal (FM) in fish feeds within the past decade. While global interest in this alternative is growing, research on its effects on fish digestibility, blood parameters, and economic performance has been limited. Meta-analysis on the apparent digestibility coefficient revealed a negative effect summary on dry matter (−0.92) and crude lipid (−0.51), although the difference between the two groups was relatively minor. However, a positive effect summary was reported in the apparent digestibility of crude protein (0.12), suggesting a potential advantage in the utilization of protein by fish fed with IM-containing diets. Whereas meta-analysis on fish blood parameters demonstrates varying effects summary, necessitating further research. Analysis of economic performance revealed an overall better economic performance in the IM diet with an effect summary of −0.08 for feed cost and 0.00 for the economic profit index. Overall use of IM in aquafeed shows promise in improving feed quality and fish performance, potentially becoming a sustainable alternative to traditional FM. Recommendations include exploring IM’s impact on fish blood parameters through more investigations. Shifting focus from traditional measures to markers directly linked with fish health and immune response can provide more precise insights. Moreover, exploring various components of IM, such as lipids and functional elements like chitin, through simplified breakdown methods, can significantly enhance our comprehension of their nutritional value. Analyzing how each part influences fish health could pave the way for a sustainable and efficient alternative to FM in aquaculture.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".