Effects of dietary inclusion of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) meal in low fishmeal diets on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) growth, nutrient utilization, fillet quality, and wound healing capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological and economic concerns of fishmeal and terrestrial crop contributions to protein and lipid in the diets of cultured fish have resulted in significant reductions over the last few decades, initiating investigations into alternative sources. Marine zooplankton, such as Antarctic krill possess high levels of protein, phospholipid, essential n-3 LC-PUFA (EPA and DHA) as well as carotenoids like astaxanthin. Salmon were fed experimental diets containing 0, 8 and 12 % Antarctic krill meal (KM) over a 25-week period and quantified various production characteristics of the fish as well as their responses to mechanical wounding. Atlantic salmon gained over 300 % of their initial body weight over the 25-week feeding period and their Condition Factor, FCR, PER, diet digestibility and whole-body composition of fish receiving the 8 and 12 % KM test diets did not significantly differ from the 0 % control diet. However, fish fed KM test diets were able to maintain the high performance of the control diet fed fish, but with up to 31 % lower plant proteins, 15 % less micronutrient additives, 14 % lower lipid supplements, and 4 % less synthetic astaxanthin due to KM meal. In addition, salmon fillets showed a significantly higher mean level of pigmentation (i.e., yellow and red colouration) in fish fed the 12 % KM meal diet, and gross imaging showed wounded skin from fish fed 12 % KM had significantly less variation in colouration/appearance from unwounded skin, compared to control, which could be beneficial to the Atlantic salmon industry by reducing hyperpigmentation that often leads to costly downgrades for producers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".