Effects of Golden Apple Snail (Pomacea Canaliculata, Lamarck) Shell Particle Size on Growth Performance, Carcass Quality, Bone Strength and Small Intestinal Histology in Thai Native Chickens (Pradu Hang Dum Chiangmai 1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study whether the particle size of golden apple snail (Pomacea Canaliculata, Lamarck) shell induces negative effects on the growth performance, carcass quality, bone strength and small intestinal histology in Thai native chickens (Pradu Hang Dum Chiangmai 1), 192 chickens, both male and female, were divided into 4 groups with 4 replicates of 12 chickens each at 5 weeks of age. The control group received limestone as a source of calcium. The experimental groups received diets containing golden apple snail shell particles, with sizes ranging from 0:50 to 1:00, from 1.00 to 1.70, and from 1.70 to 2.80 mm as a calcium source. Feed intake and weight were measured weekly, and carcass quality, tibial bone strength and small intestinal histology were observed at 16 weeks of age. The data of growth performance, carcass quality, tibial bone strength and small intestinal histology did not present negative results after feeding any of the golden apple snail shell sizes. On the contrary, a slightly higher weight gain was observed in the group consuming the 1.00 to 1.70 mm snail shell particles during the period from the 13th to the 16th week. Improved carcass quality and pectoralis major and tibial bone strength, as well as significantly increased duodenal villus surface and jejunal crypt cell numbers (p < 0.05) were observed in the group fed the 1.00 to 1.70 mm snail shell particles. These results suggest that golden apple snail shell particles between 1.00 and 1.70 mm can improve growth performance due to hypertrophied intestinal function.
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".