MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037820580 · doi:10.1016/j.psj.2020.05.029

Rearing cage type and dietary limestone particle size: I, effects on growth, apparent retention of calcium, and long bones attributes in Lohmann selected Leghorn-Lite pullets

2020· article· en· W3037820580 on OpenAlexafffund
Tanka Khanal, Grégoy Y. Bédécarrats, Tina M. Widowski, Elijah G. Kiarie

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersEgg Farmers of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Poultry Research Council
KeywordsCageAnimal scienceStarterBone mineralChemistryNutrientBiologyBody weightEndocrinologyInternal medicineFood scienceEcologyOsteoporosisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of rearing cage type and dietary limestone particle size (LPS) on growth, apparent retention (AR) of nutrients, and bone quality were investigated. The treatments were arranged in a 2 × 3 factorial with cage (conventional, CON and furnished, FUR) and LPS (fine, < 0.595 mm, F; medium, 0.595 to < 1.68 mm, M; and 1:1 mixture of F and M wt/wt; FM). A total of 900-day-old Lohmann LSL-Lite chicks were placed in CON (20 chicks/cage) and FUR (30 chicks/cage) based on BW. The diets were formulated according to breeder's nutrient specifications for starter, grower, and developer phases. At the end of 4, 12, and 16 wk of age (woa), 2 pullets/cage were euthanized for samples. At 12 and 16 woa, 1 pullet/cage was transferred to metabolism cages for AR measurements. There was no interaction (P > 0.05) between cage type and LPS on response variables. At 4 woa, body (P = 0.002) and bone (P < 0.05) weight was higher for CON than FUR pullets, but this was reversed (P < 0.01) at 16 woa. Pullets fed M LPS had higher (P < 0.05) AR of Ca, whole body mineral density (BoMD), and whole body mineral content (BoMC) than pullets fed F LPS. However, pullets fed F LPS had higher (P < 0.05) femur bone mineral density (BMD) and tended (P = 0.059) to have higher tibia bone breaking strength (BBS) than pullets fed M LPS at 16 woa. Pullets reared in CON cages had higher (P < 0.05) AR of Ca than FUR pullets. At 4 woa, CON pullets had lower (P < 0.05) femur and tibia BMD but higher tibia (93 vs. 83 N P = 0.012) BBS than FUR pullets. However, at 16 woa, FUR pullets had higher (P < 0.05) BoMD, BoMC, and tibia BBS than CON pullets. In conclusions, cage type and dietary LPS had independent effects on Ca utilization and skeletal development. Despite poor Ca retention, FUR caged pullets showed improved bone quality at 16 woa. Finer LPS improved femur mineral density suggesting coarser LPS had limited effects on pullet bone quality.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207