Study of the Effects of Dietary Lutein on Reproductive Performances in Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to determine the effects of dietary supplementation of lutein on reproductive performances in mature chickens. At 40 weeks of age, 15 Barred Rock roosters (n=5 per treatment) and 108 hens (n=36 per treatment) were randomly assigned to one of three groups and fed ad libitum a standard diet supplemented with 0, 30, or 120ppm lutein. Semen was collected from each rooster by abdominal massage twice weekly, and sperm analyses (concentration, viability, and motility) were performed on individual semen samples collected the day before (d0) and 19 (d19) and 29 (d29) days after introduction to diets. Semen collected on d31, d32, and d37 was pooled according to treatment, and used to inseminate 1 replicate of hens (n=12) per treatment. Eggs were candled at 9 and 14 days to determine fertility, and stage of embryonic mortality (early, mid, late) was assessed by breaking out all unhatched eggs. Although no significant difference in sperm concentration, motility, or viability was observed between treatments, roosters fed the 120ppm lutein diet tended to display a higher sperm motility and viability at d29 (P>0.05). To account for the large degree of variation between individuals, sperm analyses data for each rooster were also corrected to their initial value. Normalized data indicate that, although not significant, roosters fed the 120ppm lutein diet still tended to display a higher sperm viability at d29 (P>0.05). No significant effect of dietary lutein was observed on fertility, embryonic survival, or hatchability. These results indicate that unlike other antioxidants, dietary supplementation of lutein (at 30 or 120ppm) does not significantly improve reproductive performance in mature chickens, as measured here by sperm quality and fertility, nor does it improve embryo survival.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".