Biological evaluation of dried Azolla in combination with carbohydrases in broiler bird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was conducted to evaluate the feeding of dried Azolla (Azollapinnata) alone and in combination with exogenous feed enzymes in commercial broiler under complete randomized design. For this purpose, day old broiler chicks (n=88) were divided into 4 main groups T0 T1, T2 and T3 with two replicates of 11 chicks each. Group T0 and T2 were given ration containing 0 and 5 per cent dried Azolla, respectively but not feed enzyme viz. phytase and carbohydrase whereas, group T1 and T3 had 0 and 5 per cent dried Azolla, respectively and fed feed enzymes. Overall growth performance in the group fed dried Azolla (T2 and T3) was found to be similar to taht of control groups (T0, T1). Feed intake per unit gain in live weight was found to be significantly (P<0.05) higher in the dried Azolla fed groups thus exhibiting low feed conversion efficiency. There was higher availability of the minerals calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) in dried Azolla fed groups T2 and T3 compared to control groups T0 and T1 as exhibited by higher retention of minerals Ca and P in the storage organ viz. tibial bone. It is thus concluded that dried Azolla can be safely incorporated at 5 percent level in poultry broiler feed.
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) | 0.001 | 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".