Effects of Different Protein and Lipid Levels in Practical Diets for Yellowtail Snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch, 1971)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yellowtail snapper Ocyurus chrysurus has great potential as a production fish in aquaculture, yet there is very limited information on its nutritional requirements. To establish baseline data, two trials were conducted to evaluate the effects of dietary protein and lipid levels in practical diets on growth and protein retention. The first trial, conducted over 14 weeks, used a series of diets with varying levels of protein (36%, 40%, and 44%) and lipids (6%, 10%, and 14%). The second trial, conducted for 10 weeks, used a series of diets with 36% protein and scaled lipid levels (7%, 10%, 13%, and 16%). Additionally, a commercial reference diet with 44% protein and 12% lipids was included. Growth performance and feed utilization parameters for Trial 1 indicated that the yellowtail snapper were able to effectively utilize practical diets containing 36% protein and 10% lipids, which produced the highest apparent net protein retention (ANPR; %) and survival. No significant differences were found in growth performance metrics, though there were numerical differences in final weight, weight gain, and survival. Similarly, in Trial 2, most growth metrics did not show significant differences. There were variations in weight gain, feed offered, and ANPR, with the highest performance observed in the fish given feed with 13% lipids. Based on the growth performance and ANPR values across these trials, we recommend 36% protein and dietary lipid levels of 7–13%, which are lower than the currently used commercial diets for marine finfish. The data gathered from the current study may be helpful for nutritionists in formulating feed to include more sustainable and cheaper feedstuffs and promote sustainable yellowtail snapper aquaculture production.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".