In vivo and In vitro digestibility of different novel canola protein concentrates developed by solid state fermentation technique in Rainbow Trout <i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The need to reduce fishmeal use and improve feed efficiency in salmonid nutrition has created a major challenge of developing novel feed ingredients for aquafeeds. One sustainable approach to deal with this challenge is producing renewable concentrated proteins using plant proteins. Canola meal is the second most grown plant protein source after soybean meal and accounts for about 13% of the world production of protein meals (253.27 mt) in 2010-2011. Solid state fermentation is an environmentally friendly bio-processing method for producing concentrated plant proteins. The aim of the current study was to investigate <i>in vivo</i> and <i>in vitro</i> apparent digestibility (AD) of canola protein concentrates produced using solid state fermentation technology in rainbow trout.</p><p>The fermented canola protein concentrates produced by <i>Neurospora sitophila</i> (10<sup>7</sup> spore/g; FCPC) and <i>Rhizopus microsporus</i> var. <i>oligosporus</i> (10<sup>6</sup> and 10<sup>7</sup> spore/g; FCPC1 and FCPC2, respectively) were included in experimental diets (consisting 30% of each ingredient and 70% basal diet). Rainbow trout (initial weight, 29.52.8 g) were held in a recirculation system (3 tanks per treatment, 30 fish per 120-l tank). Culture conditions (T, 170.3C; pH, 7.00.15; DO, 7.70.16 mg O2/l; photoperiod, 12L:12D) were regulated based on the optimum ranges reported for salmonids with a daily water exchange rate of 10%. To measure AD the experimental diets were fed to satiation for 9 days. Faeces were then collected over a 7 day period in a Guelph system and freeze dried. After anesthetizing the fish with clove oil (100 ppm), the pyloric caeca (15 fish per treatment) were collected, homogenized with distilled water (1:5 w/v) and then centrifuged (13000 g, 20 min at 4C) for enzyme extraction at -80C.In vivo ADs of dry matter (92.05%), crude protein (87.03%) and gross energy (88.47%) of FCPC2 were significantly (P<0.05) higher than those of FCPC1 (74.45, 72.37 and 71.74%) and FCPC (77.86, 73.22 and 75.15%), respectively.</p><i>In vivo</i> ADs of sulfur amino acids (methionine and cysteine) (92.55%) and lysine (94.65%) of FCPC2 were significantly (P<0.05) higher than other concentrates. <i>In vitro</i> ADs of dry matter (68.16%), crude protein (70.46%) and gross energy (65.24%) of FCPC were significantly (P<0.05) higher than those of FCPC1 (49.93, 54.34 and 51.0%). There were significant (P<0.05) regressions (R<sup>2</sup>=82.4-85.5) between <i>in vivo</i> and <i>in vitro</i> ADs for dry matter, crude protein and gross energy. Differences among ADs may be related to the metabolism rate of fungi leading to over bio-processing of nutrients and the production of unknown compounds competing with amino acids during intestinal absorption and interfering with their absorption.
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) | 0.001 | 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".