MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039030752 · doi:10.4141/a04-058

Lysine requirements of young broiler chickens are affected by level of dietary crude protein

2005· article· en· W2039030752 on OpenAlexaffvenue
María Urdaneta-Rincón, Kees de Lange, Luis Peña-Ortega, S. Leeson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNovus International
KeywordsLysineBroilerAnimal scienceWeight gainNitrogenBody weightChemistryBiologyFood scienceBiochemistryEndocrinologyAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth and body nitrogen and fat deposition in response to dietary lysine were assessed in chicks to 21 d of age when fed dietary crude protein (CP) at 170, 210, 250 or 290 g kg -1 diet. Response variables were evaluated using linear and quadratic regression, and linear-plateau models. In all cases, a better fit was observed with quadratic regression and linear-plateau models. Weight gain, F:G, and body nitrogen and fat deposition plateaued as dietary lysine was increased regardless of CP. Lysine requirements for weight gain to 21 d were significantly different when comparing 170 vs. 210 and 210 vs. 250 g CP kg -1 diets, although no differences were found when 250 and 290 g CP kg -1 were fed. Feed efficiency and body nitrogen responded in a similar manner to diet CP and lysine levels. Dietary lysine requirement increased as CP increased (170 vs. 210, and 210 to 250 g kg -1 ), although lysine requirement was unaffected when 250 or 290 g CP kg -1 diets are used. The requirements for lysine at low CP levels are better expressed as a percentage of CP. However, when dietary CP intake no longer limits growth, lysine needs should be specified as a diet percentage. Key words: Lysine, broiler chickens, nitrogen

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207