Nutrient utilisation and performance of broilers in response to processed flaxseed dietary levels and vitamin B<sub>6</sub> supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to determine the effects of processing and dietary inclusion level of flaxseed on broiler performance and nutrient utilisation. Flaxseed was included in the diet fed to day‐old broilers for the first 3 weeks as whole seed, ground seed, autoclaved whole seed, ground autoclaved whole seed or whole seed pelleted with the other ingredients, at levels of 0, 100, 120 and 140 g kg−1. Chicks fed the pelleted flaxseed‐containing diets had heavier body weights, consumed more feed and had better feed/gain ratios than those fed the other flaxseed‐containing diets during the 3 weeks period (P < 0.01). The flaxseed level in the diet also had very significant (P < 0.01) effects on body weight and feed/gain ratio at the end of weeks 1 and 3, with the diets containing 100 g kg−1 flaxseed resulting in better performance than the other flaxseed‐containing diets. Among the flaxseed containing diets, the pelleted diets led to higher apparent ether extract digestibilities, with values of 778 and 770 g kg−1 for the diets containing 100 and 140 g kg−1 flaxseed respectively. This better utilisation of ether extract by young broilers may explain the significantly (P < 0.05) higher AMEn (apparent metabolisable energy) value of 2924 kcal kg−1 for the pelleted 140 g kg−1 flaxseed‐containing diet. This was 15.4–17.5% higher than for the diets with the same level of flaxseed but provided as raw or autoclaved whole seed. The pelleting of flaxseed allowed an inclusion rate of 100 g kg−1 without any reduction in the performance and nutrient utilisation of broilers. Copyright © 2003 Society of Chemical Industry
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".