Performance, egg quality, and sensory analysis of the eggs of quails fed whole rice bran stabilized with organic acids and stored for different amounts of time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole rice bran (WRB) was added to Japanese quail feed, and the effects of stabilization of the WRB with organic acids and its storage for different amounts of time were evaluated with respect to performance and egg quality, centesimal composition, and sensory characteristics. We used 150 90-d-old Japanese quails. We had a 5 × 2 factorial scheme of five storage periods (0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 d), with and without organic acid treatment. To replace corn, 20% WRB was added to the diet. Feed consumption increased for up to 71 d of bran storage (P = 0.01) and then subsequently decreased. An increasing quadratic relationship was observed between egg mass and storage time for up to 71 d of storage (P = 0.03); egg mass then decreased thereafter. The specific gravity of the eggs produced by birds that received treated WRB at 0 d of storage was greater than those of eggs produced by birds that received treated WRB after 90 d of storage. In conclusion, the organic acid treatment maintained the quality of the WRB over up to 120 d of storage and could comprise 20% of the laying quails’ diet without affecting growth performance, egg quality, bromatological composition, or the sensory attributes of the 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) | 0.000 | 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".