Effect of Polysavone (Alfalfa Extract) on Abdominal Fat Deposition and Immunity in Broiler Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two hundred 1-day-old male commercial Arbor Acres broiler birds were randomly distributed to a control group and a polysavone group (5 replicates of 20 birds each) to investigate the influence of polysavone, a natural extract from alfalfa, on abdominal fat deposition and immunity in broiler chickens. Birds in the control group were supplied with a basal diet, and 0.06% polysavone was added to the basal diet of birds in the polysavone group. Body weight and feed consumption for each replicate were recorded weekly. At 3, 4, 5, and 6 wk of age, 4 birds from each replicate were randomly selected for blood and organ sampling. Polysavone had no significant effect on feed intake, BW, or feed:gain ratio in the experimental period, and it decreased the abdominal fat weights at 5 and 6 wk of age. Polysavone improved (P <0.05) the relative thymus and spleen weights at 6 wk of age and the bursa weights at 4 and 5 wk of age compared with the control group. At 4 and 6 wk of age, the proliferation of T and B lymphocytes in the polysavone group was significantly greater (P <0.05) than that in the control group. When birds were 4 and 5 wk of age, polysavone resulted in a significant increase (P <0.05) in serum anti-Newcastle disease virus hemagglutination inhibition antibody titer. These results showed that polysavone may decrease abdominal fat deposition and enhance immunity without an adverse effect on the performance of broiler chickens.
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".