Effects of Canthaxanthin on Egg Production, Egg Quality, and Egg Yolk Color in Laying Hens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of canthaxanthin (CTX) on egg production, (average daily feed intake) ADFI, egg quality, and yolk color compared with natural xanthophylls in feedstuffs in laying hens were studied in a 5-wk trial. A total of 280 36-wk-old ISA Brown layers were divided into the following 7 treatments: T1, negative control (30% corn+20% wheat); T2, diet with 50% corn; T3, diet with 5% DDGS; T4, diet with 10% DDGS; T5, T1+0.011% CTX; T6, T1+0.021% CTX; T7, commercial diet with 40% corn. Although ADFI, and egg quality were not affected by dietary treatments, the egg production was higher (P<0.05) in diet supplemented with 0.021% colorant than diet with 50% corn, and diet supplemented 0.011% colorant. Yolk color in layers fed the diet contained 10% DDGS was higher (P<0.05) than the layers fed the T1 diet, and the diet with 5% DDGS. Yolk color score was linearly improved (P<0.05) when the diet supplemented with 0.011%, and 0.021% CTX. Higher yolk color score was also observed (P<0.05) when layers fed commercial diet compared with control diet, and the diet with higher natural xanthophylls. In conclusion, egg production and yolk color were improved when layers fed diet supplemented with colorant. S style='font-size:10.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".