Comparative analysis of fatty acid composition of wild vs. farmed salmon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To respond to the increasing global demand for fish, nowadays, almost 50% of the global fish market comes from aquaculture production [1]. Thus, there is the need to assure a correct information, not only about the species, but also about the production method (farmed vs. wild) and the catch origin of fish. Salmon, a hightrophic- level carnivorous species with high economic value due to its popularity, is among the fish species that is frequently produced in aquaculture. Although the feed given to farm-raised salmon is designed to meet its nutritional requirements, it can present differences compared to the diet of wild salmon that can be reflected on the muscle composition of farmed versus wild salmons. Therefore, this work aims at comparing the fatty acid composition of salmon from aquaculture and caught in the wild. Salmon specimens caught in the wild (n = 25) and farm-raised (n = 25) were obtained from West of Vancouver Island and Campbell River (Canada), respectively. Two lipid extraction methods (Soxhlet extraction with n-hexane and an adaptation of the Bligh and Dyer extraction method) and two derivatization procedures (alkaline transmethylation using KOH and acid-catalyzed transmethylation using BF3/MEOH solution) were tested. Fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) were analyzed in a Shimadzu GC-2010 Plus gas chromatograph equipped with a Shimadzu AOC-20i auto-injector, a flame ionization detector and a CP-Sil 88 silica capillary column (50 x 0.25 mm i.d., 0.20 μm). The injector and detector temperatures were 250 and 270 °C, respectively. The compounds were identified by comparison with standards (FAME 37, Supelco). Based on the obtained results, the modified Bligh and Dyer method was chosen for lipid extraction since it allowed obtaining higher amounts of long chain unsaturated fatty acids, particularly of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Similar results were obtained for both tested derivatization methodologies. In general, the two groups of salmon samples showed different profiles, with wild samples presenting significantly higher contents of omega-3 fatty acids, in particular docosahexaenoic and eicosapentaenoic acids, while farmed salmon had higher amounts of oleic and linoleic acids.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".