Molting in Salmonella Enteritidis-Challenged Laying Hens Fed Alfalfa Crumbles. III. Blood Plasma Metabolite Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine an alfalfa crumble diet as an alternative molt diet and compare the physiological response of hens to the responses of feed-deprived molted hens. Hens >50 wk old were placed into 6 treatment groups (12 hens per group in trial 1 and 10 hens per group in trial 2): nonmolted Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis positive (FF+), nonmolted Salmonella Enteritidis negative (FF-), feed withdrawal Salmonella Enteritidis positive (FW+), FW Salmonella Enteritidis negative (FW), alfalfa Salmonella Enteritidis positive (ALC+), and ALC Salmonella Enteritidis negative (ALC-). Each hen in the Salmonella Enteritidis-positive groups was challenged on the fourth day of the study with 1 mL of 10(6)-cfu Salmonella Enteritidis. Blood was collected on d 2, 5, 9, and 12 of the trial. Blood plasma was collected and metabolite concentrations were analyzed for glucose, calcium, cholesterol, uric acid, total protein, and triglycerides. The feed intakes of the FF hens were 4- to 6-fold greater (P <or= 0.05) than those of the ALC birds in both trials. Over the 12 d of molt, the FW+ hens lost more (P <or= 0.05) BW than all other groups except the FW- hens, whereas the FW-, ALC-, and ALC+ hens lost more BW than the FF hen groups. Uric acid concentrations were generally lower in molted hens compared with the FF hen groups during the initial stages of molt. On d 9 of both trials, concentrations of calcium and total protein were higher (P <or= 0.05) in the FF hens than in the other groups. The FF hen groups exhibited higher (P
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".