Evaluating by-products of the Atlantic shellfish industry as alternative feed ingredients for laying hens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A full-cycle laying hen study was conducted to evaluate crab meal (CM) and lobster meal (LM) as feed ingredients for laying hens by assigning four hundred thirty-two 35-wk-old White Leghorns to 1 of 6 diets [control, 2.5% CM, 2.5% LM, 5% CM, 5% LM, and 2.5% CM + 2.5% LM (blend)]. Productive performance and egg parameters were evaluated every 28-d period. Eggs were collected at 67 wk of age from the 5% CM, 5% LM, and blend treatments for analysis of yolk fatty acid composition. At 55 and 67 wk of age, ulnas were collected to determine breaking strength, percent ash, and calcium. Body weights, feed consumption, hen-day production, feed efficiency, and egg quality were not affected (P > 0.05) by treatment. The L* scores of eggs from 5% CM, 5% LM, and blend were lower (P < 0.05) than eggs from the control by the end of the second 28-d period. The a* score of the eggs from 5% CM, 5% LM, and blend was higher (P < 0.05) than the control by the end of the first 28-d period. The content of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in egg yolks was different (P < 0.05) among the control (0.17 g/100 g), 5% CM (0.46 g/100 g), 5% LM (0.32 g/100 g), and blend (0.38 g/100 g) treatments. Treatment did not affect (P > 0.05) any of the bone parameters measured at 55 and 67 wk of age. CM and LM supported similar egg production, feed efficiency, egg yolk color, adequate bone strength, and the incorporation of DHA into egg yolks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".