A comparative evaluation of functions for partitioning nitrogen and amino acid intake between maintenance and growth in broilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY The results from three types of study with broilers, namely nitrogen (N) balance, bioassays and growth experiments, provided the data used herein. Sets of data on N balance and protein accretion (bioassay studies) were used to assess the ability of the monomolecular equation to describe the relationship between (i) N balance and amino acid (AA) intake and (ii) protein accretion and AA intake. The model estimated the levels of isoleucine, lysine, valine, threonine, methionine, total sulphur AAs and tryptophan resulting in zero balance to be 58, 59, 80, 96, 23, 85 and 32 mg/kg live weight (LW)/day, respectively. These estimates show good agreement with those obtained in previous studies. For the growth experiments, four models, specifically re-parameterized for analysing energy balance data, were evaluated for their ability to determine crude protein (CP) intake at maintenance and efficiency of utilization of CP intake for producing gain. They were: a straight line, two equations representing diminishing returns behaviour (monomolecular and rectangular hyperbola) and one equation describing smooth sigmoidal behaviour with a fixed point of inflexion (Gompertz). The estimates of CP requirement for maintenance and efficiency of utilization of CP intake for producing gain varied from 5·4 to 5·9 g/kg LW/day and 0·60 to 0·76, respectively, depending on the models.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".