Cited by 14Aquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFood and Agricultural SciencesAquaculture disease management and microbiota

An Evaluation of the Suitability of Selected Waste Products in Feeds for Three Fish Species

Open access
Gunasekera, Rasanthi M., Turoczy, Nicholas J., De Silva, Sena S., Gavine, Fiona, Gooley, Geoff J.·2002·Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology

Abstract

Five types of aquatic food industry waste products (carp offal, carp roe, fish frames, trout offal and surimi processing waste) together with fish meal were evaluated for their suitability as potential fish meal replacements, partially or wholly, in diets for three species (rainbow trout, Murray cod and shortfin eel) cultured in Australia, using a number of criteria. The proximate composition of the ingredients on a dry matter basis including protein content, lipid and ash, varied considerably. The essential amino acid (EAA) contents of the waste products and fish meal decreased in the order: carp roe > fish meal > carp offal > ‘surimi’ processing waste > fish frames > trout offal. The results of cluster analysis of A/E ratios of waste products and fish whole body fell within three clusters. The EAAI of whole body tissue of Murray cod, rainbow trout and Australian shortfin eel however, were closest to fish meal, followed by fish frame waste and/or ‘surimi’ waste. The results on A/E ratios and EAAI did not conform to the raw data on TAA and EAA. Therefore, the study emphasizes the need to have a multi-prong approach to determine the suitability of ingredients for incorporation into fish feeds.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1300/j030v11n01_06

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Fishmeal usage over a 50-year period (1960 to 2010) reveals its increased use in aquaculture, while its use in both swine and poultry feeds has declined.

    “Thus, fishmeal usage over a 50-year period (1960 to 2010) reveals its increased use in aquaculture, while its use in both swine and poultry feeds has declined as seen in Figure 5 [136].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gunasekera, R. M., Turoczy, N. J., De Silva, S. S., Gavine, F., & Gooley, G. J.
Affiliations
Deakin University (AU)
Venue
Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology
Published
2002-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
57-78
ISSN
  • 1049-8850 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-0636
OpenAlex
W2076457220
Cited by
14
References
42
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Aquaculture disease management and microbiota
Keywords
fish meal replacement, aquaculture feed, food industry waste, essential amino acid index, rainbow trout, Murray cod, proximate composition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review