Significance of successive feeding of sources of n-3 fatty acids to broiler breeders and their progeny on growth performance, intestinal lesion scores, lymphoid organs weight and plasma immunoglobulin A in broiler chickens challenged with Eimeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examined the effects of successive feeding of sources of n-3 PUFA to broiler breeders (BB) and their progeny in broiler chickens challenged with Eimeria. The BB were fed: 1) control (CON), corn-soybean meal diet, 2) CON + 1 % microalgae (DMA), as a source of DHA and 3) CON + 2.50% co-extruded full fat flaxseed (FFF), as a source of ALA. Eggs were hatched at 34, 44, and 54 wk of age. Posthatch treatments (BB-progeny) were: CON-CON, DMA-CON, FFF-CON, DMA-DMA and FFF-FFF with diets formulated for starter (d 1-10) and grower/finisher (d 11-42) phases. All chicks were orally challenged with Eimeria (E. acervulina and E. maxima) on d 10. Relative to CON, DMA and FFF increased concentration of n-3 PUFA by ≥ 2-fold in hatching eggs and progeny diets. There were no (P > 0.05) interactions between treatment and BB age on d 0 to 10 growth. In general, BB age affected (P < 0.05) growth performance throughout the study. In the starter phase, successive exposure to DHA and ALA improved FCR over CON-CON (P < 0.01). The interaction between treatment and BB age in grower/finisher was such that DHA exposure to younger BB resulted in poor growth performance (P < 0.05) relative to exposure to older BB. In contrast, exposure to ALA had similar (P > 0.05) growth performance irrespective of BB age. Moreover, successive exposure to ALA resulted in higher BWG, breast weight and lower FCR compared to successive exposure to DHA (P < 0.05). There were no (P > 0.05) interactions between treatment and BB age on the intestinal lesion scores, lymphoid organ weights and concentration of plasma immunoglobulin A (IgA). Successive exposure to DHA resulted in higher (P = 0.006) jejunal lesion scores than CON-CON birds. The results showed that successive exposure of DHA and ALA improved FCR relative to non-exposed birds in the starter phase. However, responses in the grower/finisher phase depended on n-3 PUFA type, with birds on successive ALA exposure supporting better growth and breast yield than birds on successive DHA exposure.
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 | 0.001 | 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".