ENZYMATIC EXTRACT OF Trametes maxima CU1 ON PRODUCTIVE PARAMETERS AND CARCASS YIELD OF RABBITS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the enzymatic extract (EnzE) of native fungus Trametes maxima CU1 on the productive parameters and carcass yield of rabbits. A total of 36 rabbits, 18 New Zealand and 18 California breeds were distributed randomly into two treatments: control (without EnzE supplementation) and EnzE2.5 (with 2.5% of enzymatic extract added to drinking water). All rabbits were fed with a commercial diet ad libitum. At 49, 71, and 91 d, data for body weight (BW), average daily feed intake (ADFI), feed efficiency, and average daily gain were collected. Moreover, dressing out percentage (DoP) and carcass fat yield (%CFY) were estimated. BW and ADFI were not different between treatments (P > 0.05). However, rabbits supplemented with EnzE2.5 showed higher values than the control. Rabbits EnzE2.5 and New Zealand males showed the best productive efficiency at 49 d (P < 0.05). On the other hand, EnzE2.5 showed greater DoP than control; furthermore, EnzE2.5 did not show any effect over %CFY. These results show the potential of T. maxima CU1 as a source of lignocellulases and amylases for the improvement of productive behavior and carcasses yield.
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".