MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7120872762

Conventional and alternative feedstuffs on growth and flesh quality of jundiá (Rhamdia quelen)

2011· dissertation· pt· W7120872762 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cátia Aline Veiverberg

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languagept
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFleshFeed conversion ratioCanolaSoybean mealFish mealLysineSunflowerMealPlant protein
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Die to rapid growth of aquaculture and the consequent increase for aquaculture feed, the industry's main challenge is to identify potential dietary ingredients that ensure satisfactory performance, economic viability and quality of fish. Considering this demand, the aim of this study was to evaluate the combination of different protein sources on feeding of jundiá juvenile, and their effects on growth, metabolism and quality of fish. Three experiments were conducted. In experiment 1, diets containing alternative protein sources in combination with soybean meal were evaluated: PMM: porcine meat meal; CM: canola meal; SFM: sunflower meal; PBM: poultry by-product meal. After 12 experimental weeks, jundiá fed diets PMM and PBM showed greater weight gain and better feed conversion than those fed diets with plant-protein diets. The enzyme activity, intestinal quotient and somatic indices changed according to the dietary protein source. Fish fed diets PMM and PBM had higher concentrations of plasma triglycerides and cholesterol, and higher fat content in fillet and whole fish, reflecting the higher fat diets. Fish fed diets CM and SFM had lower protein deposition. In the second experiment, the aim was to evaluate the effect of supplementation strategies for limiting amino acids in the diet of jundiá on growth, metabolic response and possible impact on fillet quality. The experimental diets were: CON: porcine meat meal + soybean meal, supplemented with lysine and methionine; MIX: mixture of plant and animal-protein sources, without supplementation of synthetic amino acids; VEG: mixture of plant-protein meals and supplementation with lysine and methionine. At the end of eight weeks trial, there were no significant differences on the performance and fillet composition. However, there were changes in metabolic response of jundiá die to diet composition, which was reflected in body fat content. The VEG diet altered the color and brightness of fillets, although these differences were not detected in the sensory analysis. The third experiment was conducted to evaluate the apparent digestibility coefficients (ADC) of dry matter, organic matter, crude protein, gross energy and fat of the following ingredients: canola meal, porcine meat meal, sunflower meal, soybean meal and poultry by-product meal. Feces were collected in modified Guelph system, using chromium oxide (0.2% in diet) as marker. From the ADC of diets were estimated ADC of ingredients. Porcine meat meal showed the worst digestibility coefficients for all nutritional fractions (about 30%), whereas plant-protein sources showed good digestibility coefficients (between 70 and 80%). Based on the results obtained in this work, we can conclude that: canola meal or sunflower meal in combination with soybean meal in large quantities are not an alternative dietary protein to jundiá; The combination of three plant protein meals, included in small amounts in the diet can provide similar weight gain to that obtained with the CON diet; There is no need for supplementation of free amino acids in diets composed by the combination of vegetable and animal meals in small proportions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)→Same topicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth→French-language works237,207→