The effect of quantitative feed restriction on allometric growth in broilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feed restriction in broilers is aimed at preventing metabolic disorders, increasing feed efficiency, or manipulating carcass conformation. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the effects of modest graded levels feed restriction during the second and third wk of life. Mixed-sex chickens were raised in pens with 4 replications per treatment to 35 d of age. Chickens were fed ad libitum throughout the trial, or 90, 80, or 70% of expected ad libitum feed intake during the second wk of life, or 95, 90, 85, or 80% of expected ad libitum feed intake during the third wk of life. Feed intake, BW, ADG, and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were measured and weekly dissections were conducted to characterize allometric growth of the breast muscle, legs, abdominal fat pad, liver, gastro-intestinal tract (GIT), and heart. Feeding 70% of ad libitum during wk 2 and 80% during wk 3 reduced ADG during the restriction period and reduced BW at the end of the restriction period, but chickens exhibited complete compensatory growth within one wk after the restriction period. No significant effects of restriction treatment were found on BW, FCR, fat pad, empty GIT, breast muscle, heart, legs, and liver weight at d 35, but allometric growth curve for breast muscle was lower in birds fed 80 and 85% of ad libitum during wk 3, and for birds fed 70% of ad libitum in wk 2. Allometric growth curves for all body parts were different between males and females, except for the liver. Females had higher relative fat pad, breast muscle, and liver weight and a lower GIT and heart and leg weight compared with males at d 35. Feed restriction could differentially affect males and females. This study showed that feeding 70% of ad libitum in wk 2 might be beneficial to reduce fat pad, but later feed restriction in wk 3 may reduce breast muscle weight at broiler processing age.
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) | 0.001 | 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".