MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393347336 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v11i3.2359

Amino Acid Supplementation Strategies In Low-Protein Diets For Broiler Chickens

2024· article· en· W4393347336 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sumera Naz Solangi, Nasir Rajput, Naseeb Ullah Marri, Ghazan Khan Yousafzai, Muhiuddin Bangulzai, Abdul Hafeez Bukero, Muhammad Shahjahan Bajoi, Syed Nouman Shah, Hamid Ali Langove, Ateeque Liquat Baloch, Mujeeb Ur Rehman, Farhan Ali Laghari, Firdous Ali Amir, Naik Muhammad Marri, Abdul Kabir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroilerAmino acidFood scienceChemistryBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

180-day-old broiler chicks obtained from a commercial hatchery in Hyderabad.Group A is basal diet 21% protein without amino acid supplementation Group B: basal diet 21% protein+ low amino acid supplementation. Group C: 19% protein with medium amino acid supplementation. Group D: 17% protein high amino acid supplementation. Growth performance and nutrient digestibility data were collected. Analyzed using JMP software from SAS, USA. Group B higher live body weight (2235.67±12.09 g/b).Feed intake was highest in Group A. Best feed conversion ratio (FCR) observed in Group B Dressing percentage: Group A > Group B > Group D > Group C.Relative weight of liver and heart was significantly different among the groups. While relative weight of proventriculus, spleen and intestine were non-significantly different among the groups. Leg, femur, breast, drumstick, and wing weight were also non-significantly different among the groups. Regarding nutrients digestibility indicated that significantly higher dry matter digestibility was recorded in group B (22.51±0.78%) followed by D (20.41±0.22%), C (19.21±0.12%) and A (18.95±0.52%). Maximum (P> 0.05) ash digestibility was determined in group C (88.23±0.05%) followed by D (86.36±0.20%), B (85.36±0.32%) and A (93.33±0.15%). Significantly higher crude fiber digestibility was recorded in group B (69.49±0.12%) followed by A (58±0.25%), C (50.09±0.20%) and D (41.89±0.18%). Significantly higher fat digestibility was determined in group D (51.06±0.16%) followed by B (49.39±0.29%), A (49.26±0.25%) and C (44.56±0.16%).Significantly higher crude protein digestibility was determined in group A (60.39±0.35%) followed by C (56.23±0.07%), D (54.64±0.13%) and B (54.19±0.38%). Mortality percentage in group A, B, C and D was recorded as 3%, 2%, 2% and 2%, respectively. Increased Live Body Weight Group B (fed the basal diet with low amino acid) showed significantly higher live body weight compared to other groups. Improved Feed Efficiency The feed conversion ratio (FCR) was best in Group B. Dressing Percentage Group A had the highest dressing percentage followed by Group B, D, and C.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→