Defining the effects of wheat type, water inclusion level, and wet-diet restriction on variability in performance of broilers fed wheat-based diets with added water
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The objectives of the study were to determine if feed conversion ratio (FCR) in broilers fed wet Hard Red Spring (HRS) as compared to Durum-based wheat diets could be reduced by: (a) diluting HRS with Durum wheat, (b) pelleting of the wheat, (c) adding different levels of water to the diet, or (d) restricting intake of diets to which water was added. Three wheat types [Durum, HRS and a Composite (50:50) sample] were ground, with one portion of the ground grain being pelleted and reground before both forms of each wheat type were included at 80% of a basal broiler diet. All diets were supplemented with a commercial wheat enzyme and fed as a mash. Each of the six diets was fed in one of four feed regimens: DRY (as is); WET1.2 (DRY with 1.2 g water g -1 feed); WET0.6 (DRY with 0.6 g water g -1 feed); and RWET1.2 [WET1.2 diet treatment restricted-fed to 120% of the previous day’s DRY feed intake (on an air-dried basis) for each diet type]. This provided 24 dietary treatments each fed to six cages of five male broilers from 1 to 21 d of age. The wet diets were prepared daily. Among the feed regimens WET1.2 resulted in the significantly highest 21-d body weight. The significant increase in feed intake and FCR of HRS-based diets with added water was reduced significantly by diluting this wheat with Durum wheat. Feeding the unpelleted Composite wheat sample significantly improved growth rate over either wheat alone, presumably due to an improved balance of nutrients. Pelleting significantly reduced intake of wet HRS-based diets and increased apparent metabolisable energy (AME), resulting in a marked reduction in FCR compared to unpelleted diets. There was some value in using less water in HRS-based, but not in Durum-based diets, with respect to FCR and metabolisable energy retention. Physical restrictions of feed intake reduced FCR of wet (WET1.2) unpelleted HRS diets, but did not affect the same diet when wheat was pelleted. Further work is required to establish the optimum consistency of feed in a wet form to maximize feed intake and growth while minimizing FCR. Key words: Wheat, wet feeding, enzymes, feed intake, broilers
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».