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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".