The enrichment of eggs with folic acid through supplementation of the laying hen diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In light of evidence supporting a need for humans to increase their dietary folate intakes, experiments were conducted to evaluate the extent to which egg folate levels could be increased. In Study 1, Hyline W36 hens (n = 6/diet) received a barley-based diet, containing 0 or 10 mg/kg of crystalline folic acid, to establish the potential for folate incorporation into table eggs. In Study 2, 70 hens were divided into seven treatment groups (n = 10 hens/diet) and received diets supplemented with 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 mg folic acid/kg diet. In Study 3, 64 hens received the barley-based diet with or without 4 mg folic acid/kg diet. Eggs were collected and stored for 0, 7, 14, 21, or 28 d, prior to folate determinations. The folate content of eggs was determined by HPLC for 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (the sole form of folate in egg yolk). Results from Study 1 showed that a 10 mg/kg inclusion of folic acid increased folate incorporation into egg yolk (41.0 +/- 0.7 microg /egg) over that of an unsupplemented diet (17.5 +/- 0.7 microg /egg; P = 0.0001). In Study 2, the response of egg folate to dietary folic acid supplementation was saturable, with 90% of maximal egg folate levels established at approximately 4 mg folic acid/ kg diet. Results from Study 3 showed that folate levels are stable, in control and fortified eggs, during 28 d of storage at 4 C. In terms of its nutritional value, one large egg collected from a folic acid-supplemented hen provided approximately 12.5% of the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for adult humans (RDA = 400 mg/d).
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) | 0.000 | 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".