Characterization of Residual Biomass and Feasibility Analysis for Fish Feed Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global fish consumption reached 20.5 kg per capita/year in 2018.The increasing demand for fish in recent years has contributed to a rise in fish industry production, which has also led to an increase in fish waste throughout the production chain.According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), approximately 205 million tons of fish are produced globally, with around 50% of this total being considered waste.The production of fish waste from the processing and marketing stages has generated a quantity of organic matter that, if utilized, can be processed into high-quality oil and used in industries for potential fishmeal, fish feed, cosmetics, and so on.In the search for less polluting alternatives, with the aim of minimizing the environmental problems caused by fish waste, there is a need to establish waste utilization systems that are both economically viable and energy efficient.The viscera, scales, and heads of fish are often discarded, as this organic waste can cause the proliferation of diseases and undesirable animals.As an alternative way of treating this waste, a study was carried out on this biomass in the formulation of fishmeal.The aim of this study is, therefore, to reuse this waste by extracting lipids from the residual oil and producing a nutritionally rich fish meal.To this end, the project involved collecting waste from the local market, extracting and producing the oil using the Soxhlet method, and drying the biomass in an oven.The study showed that fishing and marketing have become major activities in recent years, especially in the region studied, Pinheiro-MA (Brazil).However, the waste and lack of proper treatment are harmful.The study revealed the need to adopt hygienic and sanitary treatment, public policies, and a proposal for the reuse of residual biomass.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".