Effect of Dietary Additives on Rabbit Performance, Carcass Traits and Some Blood Constituents under Egyptation Summer Season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sixty 7-week-old New Zealand White rabbits were randomly distributed into 5 equal experimental groups. The experimental rabbits were fed the tested diets till 14 weeks of age during summer season. The basal diet without feed additives (control; T1) and the other experimental diets were supplemented with enzymes at 0.5 g/kg (T2), organic acids at 1.0 g/kg (T3), Beta-pro at 0.2 g/kg (T4) or their combination (T5). The criteria of response were body weight, weight gain, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio, some blood constituents, carcass traits and economic efficiency. The obtained results can be summarized as follows: Positive effects of feed additives were observed on live body weight, daily weight gain and feed conversion of growing rabbits. There were no significant effects on blood parameters or carcass traits due to feed additives. It can be concluded that dietary Beta-pro (enzymes+probiotics) or a combination of enzymes, organic acids and Beta-pro at the tested levels can be used to improve the rabbit performance, with no adverse effects on carcass characteristics or blood parameters.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".