High-energy diet does not overcome the negative impact of conjugated linoleic acid on young broiler performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) supplementation in diets with different energy levels in broiler performance. Birds were offered a starter (1-21 d), grower (22-35 d) and finisher (36-42 d) diets; wherein soybean oil was replaced by CLA. The study consisted of a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement with two CLA levels (0 and 1%) and three energy levels (3050, 3100 and 3150 ME kg-1 diet). During the grower and finisher periods, birds were fed diets with same energy level and CLA supplementation was maintained the same. Growth performance was assessed weekly, and carcass and cuts yield were assessed at 42d. Interaction effect of CLA by energy level was observed in broiler performance and carcass yield throughout the study (p > 0.05). During the overall period (1-42 d) broiler performance was not affected by CLA (p > 0.05).However, CLA supplementation (1%) decreased weight gain (p < 0.05) at 21d, regardless of energy level, with no effects on feed intake and feed conversation rate (p > 0.05). The increase in dietary energy was not able to compensate the negative effect on growth performance of broilers supplemented with 1% CLA at the starter period.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".