Performance, intestinal morphometry, and incubation parameters of broiler chickens submitted to in ovo feeding with different techniques and amino acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to evaluate techniques, incubation period, and effects of amino acids in ovo feeding. First, 240 hatching eggs were selected and distributed in a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement (two techniques and 3 d). The parameters of incubation, relative weight of gastrointestinal organs, and classification of embryonic mortality were evaluated. In the second stage, 720 hatching eggs were incubated with five treatments: control, methionine (20 and 30 mg), and lysine (20 and 30 mg). These animals were housed during 14 d. The animals were divided with five treatments, nine replicates, and groupings based on sex. Incubation parameters, performance, intestinal morphometry, and relative weight of digestive tract organs were evaluated. The results indicate that the technique using a 45° needle axis passing through the air chamber hinders hatchability. In the organ weighing, there was no difference between the evaluated factors. For intestinal morphometry, there was only a significant difference between the dose factor for the crypt villi and crypt diameter. To conclude, the technique using a 90° angle without passing through the air chamber is safer for the embryos. The inoculation of methionine (20 and 30 mg) obtained data similar to the control group.
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) | 0.001 | 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".