Adverse Effects of Dietary Lupine in Broiler Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the adverse effects of dietary lupines in broiler chickens for which lupine seeds (Lupinus angustifolius) in raw, dehulled, or autoclaved forms were used as a replacement for soybean meal (SBM) in practical diets. Test diets contained 35% SBM (control) or raw (40%), autoclaved (40%), or dehulled (35%) lupine seed meal. All diets were isocaloric (3,230 kcal/kg AME) and isonitrogenous (23% crude protein). Each diet was offered ad libitum to a group of 16 (four replicates with four birds per replicate) day-old male broiler chicks for 21 d. Chemical analysis of lupine seeds showed no detectable levels of mycotoxins, and total alkaloid contents were below 0.01%. Decreased food intake and growth rate were the main signs observed in all birds fed lupine-based diets. These adverse effects were observed during the first week and persisted throughout the trial. Acute signs of toxicity were observed in four chicks fed the diet containing raw lupine seed during the first week of exposure. Initial clinical signs included leg weakness, lack of coordination, and torticollis. In later stages, during Weeks 2 and 3, some birds fed lupine-based diets showed signs of muscle paralysis and skeletal deformity. Postmortem examination did not show gross pathological changes associated with the dietary treatments. Liver microsomal cytochrome P-50 content was higher (P < 0.05) in birds fed the raw lupine-based diet (mean 0.56 pmol/mg protein) in comparison with controls (mean 0.25 pmol/mg protein), which indicated a systemic effect. Based on the present results, it can be stated that high levels of some varieties of sweet lupines in broiler diets may cause significant adverse effects manifested as 1) decreased feed intake and growth rate in most of the birds, and 2) specific signs of acute and chronic toxicity in some individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 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".