Effect of feeding hens regular or deodorized menhaden oil on production parameters, yolk fatty acid profile, and sensory quality of eggs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was conducted to investigate whether feeding menhaden oil (MO) to hens affects egg weight, and whether using deodorized MO (DMO) could ameliorate decreased sensory quality of eggs (characteristic for hens fed high fish oil diets). Two-hundred twenty-four Single Comb White Leghorn hens were allocated to seven dietary treatments comprising either no fish oil, DMO, or regular MO (RMO) at 2, 4, and 6% in commercial-type diets from 19 to 55 wk of age. The data collected were analyzed in four experimental periods (i.e., 0, 2, 6, and 9 mo after feeding MO diets). The sensory evaluation of 2-wk stored eggs from hens fed the 2% RMO, 2% DMO, and control diets was undertaken. Egg weight decreased linearly with increasing MO in all periods tested (P < 0.05). The panelist's scores of aroma, taste, flavor, and acceptability of eggs from hens fed diets containing 2% of either RMO or DMO were lower (P < 0.05) than for control eggs. Greater aftertaste and off-flavors in these eggs were also detected. No differences in sensory quality (P > 0.05) for eggs from hens fed RMO vs. DMO were found. These results suggest that the deodorization of MO does not ameliorate the impaired sensory quality of eggs characteristic of hens fed MO.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".