MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972843690 · doi:10.4141/cjas07051

Effect of whole wheat, enzyme supplementation and grain texture on the production performance of laying hens

2007· article· en· W1972843690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janice L. MacIsaacand, Derek Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhole wheatWhole grainsWheat grainAnimal scienceBiologyFood scienceCereal grainAgronomyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the effects of a modified laying hen diet/whole wheat combination, grain texture and enzyme (arabinoxylanase preparation) supplementation on production performance, 384 White Leghorn hens were fed either a nutritionally balanced diet or a modified diet/whole wheat (80%/20%) combination from 20 to 64 wk of age. The modified diets were formulated to ensure the calcium and available phosphorus requirements were met. Primary grains corn and wheat were ground through either 5- or 7-mm screens. Except for weeks 44–48, there was no effect (P > 0.05) of feeding the modified diet/whole wheat combination on egg production to 56 wk. Egg production was reduced during the 44–48 and 56–60 wk periods when the modified diet/whole wheat combination (90.1% and 84.3%; 44–48 and 56–60 wk) was supplemented with the commercial enzyme (84.8% and 76.2%; 44–48 and 56–60 wk). For hens fed the modified diet/whole wheat combination, 7 mm ground grains in the modified diet reduced (P ≤ 0.05) egg production (83.2% and 76.5%; 5 mm and 7 mm grains) during the 60–64 wk period. Egg specific gravity was not affected (P > 0.05) by treatment. Layer diets mixed with whole wheat or containing coarsely ground grains could result in decreased feed costs and increased returns for producers. Key words: Whole wheat, enzyme, grain texture, layer

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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