Quantitative and qualitative feed restriction on growth characteristics of male broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four experiments were conducted to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative feed restriction on the performance of male broiler chickens. In the first experiment, broilers fed identical pelleted diets were feed-restricted from 5 to 42 d by giving 95, 90, or 85% of the feed consumed ad libitum by control birds the previous day. In a second experiment, broilers were fed pellet or mash diets from 1 to 7 wk. In Experiments 3 and 4, broilers were feed-restricted to 90% of the ad libitum intake of a control group during different intervals. Results from Experiment 1 indicated that live body weight at 42 d was significantly different between unrestricted and restricted broilers (P < 0.01). A reduction in mortality was noted when feed intake was reduced (P < 0.05). In the second experiment, broilers fed mash had lower body weights and breast meat yields at 42 and 49 d (P < 0.05). Cumulative mortality at 42 and 49 d was reduced in broilers fed mash (P < 0.05). Results from Experiment 3 indicated that body weight and mortality were not significantly different (P > 0.05) at 42 d across treatments. There was a significant (P < 0.01) linear improvement on feed conversion at 42 d due to duration of feed restriction. Breast meat yield at 42 d was less in broilers subjected to mild feed restriction (P > 0.05) (Experiments 3 and 4). Broilers appeared able to recover from mild feed restriction, and there was always an associated reduction in mortality.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".