MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473553770 · doi:10.3382/ps/pew187

The effect of quantitative feed restriction on allometric growth in broilers

2016· article· en· W2473553770 on OpenAlexaff
S.A.S. van der Klein, F.A. Silva, R.P. Kwakkel, M.J. Zuidhof

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbdominal fatBiologyAllometryCompensatory growth (organ)BroilerAnimal scienceFeed conversion ratioBody weightEndocrinologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207