↓ Skip to main content

Impact of replacing fish meal by a mixture of different plant protein sources on the growth performance in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) diets

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Biology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of replacing fish meal by a mixture of different plant protein sources on the growth performance in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) diets
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Biology, October 2017
DOI 10.1590/1519-6984.172230
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Al-Thobaiti, K. Al-Ghanim, Z. Ahmed, E. M. Suliman, S. Mahboob

Abstract

The present study aimed to assess the appropriate level of replacement of fish meal (FM) with alternative plant sources in the feed fed to Oreochromis niloticus to evaluate the growth performance. Three isoproteinious (40% crude protein) diets were prepared from different ingredients viz., fish meal, corn gluten meal, wheat gluten meal, and bagasse kenna meal. O. niloticus showed a maximum increase in weight as 9.70, 11.09, 8.53 and 8.32 g during the 2nd, 2nd, 3rd and 2nd fortnight with feeding treatment A, B, C and D, respectively. The growth performance of the fish in terms of weight gain, specific growth rate, feed conversion ratio and protein efficiency ratio were found to be significantly (P < 0.05) higher in the fish fed with 20% replacement of fishmeal in diet B. The worst growth performance was observed in fish fed with commercial diet, designated as diet D. It was concluded that the fish meal can be replaced up to 20 percent with other plant protein sources without any negative impact on fish health. The replacement of fish meal with local plant sources (corn gluten meal, wheat gluten meal, soybean meal and bagasse kenna mix) will not only be beneficial to achieve better growth performance in O. niloticus, it will be a value addition as well.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 24%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 32 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 43%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 37 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2018.
All research outputs
#15,481,888
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Biology
#193
of 291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,117
of 327,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Biology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 291 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them