MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1880957168 · doi:10.4141/cjas2011-103

Metabolizable energy value of porcine meat and bone meal for broiler chickens

2012· article· en· W1880957168 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oladimeji Akeem Bolarinwa, O.A. Olukosi, O. Adeola

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeat and bone mealBroilerSoybean mealMealFood scienceCalorieAnimal scienceEnergy densityBiologyFish meal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bolarinwa, O. A., Olukosi, O. A. and Adeola, O. 2012. Metabolizable energy value of porcine meat and bone meal for broiler chickens. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 73–78. Ross 308 broiler chickens at 14 d post-hatch were used in a 7-d experiment to determine the metabolizable energy (ME) value of two meat and bone meal (MBM) samples. Three hundred and thirty-six broiler chickens were grouped by weight into eight blocks of seven cages with six birds per cage. The seven diets consisted of a corn-soybean meal reference diet formulated to meet the NRC (1994) requirement, and six test diets. The reference diet contained four energy sources namely corn, soybean meal, corn starch and soy oil. In the test diets, each of the two MBM samples were added to the reference diet at 30, 60 or 90 g kg−1 diet to partly replace the energy sources such that the ratio of the energy sources to one another was kept constant in all the diets. The ME and nitrogen-corrected ME (MEn) of the MBM samples were determined by the regression method in which the MBM contribution to ME, and MEn of the diets, in kilocalories, were regressed against the amount of MBM intake in grams. Gross energy of MBM1 and MBM2 were 4247 and 4697 kcal kg−1 DM, respectively. The crude protein, ash, and crude fat contents for MBM1 or MBM2 were 567 or 594, 264 or 211, and 106 or 116 g kg−1 DM. Addition of MBM linearly decreased (P<0.05) ileal nitrogen digestibility, total tract utilization of DM, energy and nitrogen as well as ME and MEn of the diets. In conclusion, the respective ME and MEn values were 2512 and 2345 kcal kg−1 DM for MBM1, and 2711 and 2127 kcal kg−1 DM for MBM2; thus MBM can be included in the diets of broiler chickens at less than 10% to provide energy.

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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207