MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803835979 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2017-0132

Assessing the performance response of laying hens to intake levels of digestible balanced protein from 27 to 66 wk of age

2018· article· en· W2803835979 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Dinesh Kumar, C. Raginski, K. Schwean-Lardner, H.L. Classen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsFeed conversion ratioAnimal scienceLysineBiologyLayingBody weightAmino acidEndocrinologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laying hens continue to improve in egg production (EP) and feed efficiency (FE), and therefore, it is relevant to re-examine their digestible balanced protein (BP) requirements. From 27 to 66 wk of age, hens (Lohmann-LSL Lite) were fed diets designed to provide 550, 625, 700, 775, or 850 mg hen −1 d −1 of amino acid balanced digestible lysine (Dlys). Response criteria included EP, egg weight (EW), feed intake (FI), mortality, egg mass (EM), egg size classifications, FE (kg feed kg −1 EM), and lysine efficiency (LE; mg Dlys g −1 EM). The experiment was a completely randomized design, and data were analyzed using regression analysis. Differences were considered significant if P ≤ 0.05. Hen-day (HD) EP, EW, EM, FI, and LE increased and FE and mortality decreased in a quadratic fashion with increasing Dlys intake, while the proportion of cracked eggs increased linearly. Egg size classifications increased linearly (jumbo, extra-large) and quadratically (large) or decreased in a quadratic manner (medium, small) with increasing Dlys intake. Maximum HDEP, EW, and EM, and minimum FE were achieved at 769, 903, 836, and 839 mg hen −1 d −1 intake of Dlys, respectively. In conclusion, the digestible BP requirement of laying hens varies with response criteria.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207