ArticleF1000Research2025
Effect of hydrolyzed red worm (
Article in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of hydrolyzed red worm (F1000Research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conventional fish feed based on fish meal, meat, and soy cake presents procurement difficulties and high costs, affecting the profitability and sustainability of the aquaculture industry. Objective: To evaluate the effect of hydrolyzed red worm (HRW- Methods: The study was conducted at the aquaculture farm of the Politécnico Colombiano Jaime Isaza Cadavid (PCJIC) at 780 m.a.s.l.,with an average temperature of 28 °C. Ninety red tilapia fingerlings, averaging 7,5±0,5 g, were distributed in nine aquariums containing 75 liters of water. Fish underwentweight and size measurements at the beginning and end of the trial. They were fed experimental diets to apparent satiation three times daily. Water quality parameters and productive rates of growth and nutrient utilization were measured. The experimental design included three treatments with three replicates each: T1 (control diet, 0% hydrolysate inclusion), T2 (10% hydrolysate inclusion), and T3 (20% hydrolysate inclusion). ANOVA (p<0,05) was applied to growth and nutrient utilization variables, with mean comparisons using α<0,05 in SPSS version 25. Results: Significant differences (p<0,04) were found between the control diet T1 (0% inclusion) and T2 (10% inclusion) in favor of weight gain (31,87 g). There were no statistical differences in size increase (p<0,217). As HRWinclusion increased, feed consumption decreased, likely due to higher hydrolyzed protein availability. Feed conversion rates showed significant differences (p<0,001) between T2 and T3 compared to T1, indicating better assimilation of the hydrolyzed protein. T2 and T3 also showed better protein and energy efficiency (p<0,001), demonstrating the hydrolyzed protein's nutritional quality and assimilation. Diet cost decreased with higher hydrolyzed inclusion (p<0,034). Conclusion: Inclusion 10% and 20% hydrolyzed red worms significantly improved production parameters and reduced costs, making it a viable alternative for feeding red tilapia for small and medium-scale producers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.