Effects of Dietary 1, 4-Diaminobutane (Putrescine) on Eggshell Quality and Laying Performance of Older Hens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted an experiment to evaluate the potential for dietary 1,4-diaminobutane (putrescine) to promote eggshell quality and overall laying hen performance. A total of 128, 60-wk-old Barred Rock hens were fed a corn and soybean meal-based layer diet supplemented with 0.0 (control), 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6% free base 1,4-diaminobutane for 4 wk. The feeding of supplemental putrescine decreased feed consumption (P < or = 0.05) and egg mass (P < or = 0.05) and tended to decrease egg production (P < 0.08). Albumen quality was not significantly affected (P < 0.09) by the end of the experiment, as determined by Haugh units. Eggshell thickness was not significantly improved with lower levels of dietary putrescine (P < 0.08). Although dietary putrescine did not have any effect on the relative weights of duodenum, jejunum + ileum, or pancreas, there was a linear increase in putrescine concentrations in tissues (P < or = 0.05). Supplementation of dietary putrescine also resulted in increased putrescine and spermidine concentrations in egg (P < or = 0.05). Egg weight and eggshell deformation increased over time; however, eggshell weight, eggshell weight as percentage of egg weight, and eggshell thickness decreased (P < or = 0.05). It appeared that eggshell quality declined regardless of diet over the 4-wk experimental period. It was concluded that the lack of effect of dietary putrescine on egg parameters, with the exception of albumen quality and eggshell thickness, was due to putrescine toxicity. Hens transferred excess dietary putrescine and metabolites to eggs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".