MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975853603 · doi:10.5713/ajas.2009.90172

The Effects of Canola or Mustard Biodiesel Press Cake on Nutrient Digestibility and Performance of Broiler Chickens

2009· article· en· W1975853603 on OpenAlexafffund
P. A. Thacker, Daniel Petri

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsCanolaBroilerBiodieselBrassicaNutrientAnimal scienceAgronomyChemistryFood scienceBiologyBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compared the nutritional value of canola (B. napa) and mustard (B. hirta) press cakes obtained from the biodiesel industry as ingredients for use in diets fed to broiler chickens. A total of 210, one-day old, male broiler chicks were randomly assigned to one of seven dietary treatments. The control diet was based on wheat and soybean meal and contained 15% canola meal. For the experimental diets, 5, 10 or 15% of the canola meal was replaced with an equal amount of either canola or mustard biodiesel press cake. Dry matter and neutral detergent fiber digestibility were significantly higher for birds fed diets containing either canola or mustard biodiesel press cake compared with canola meal. Dry matter and neutral detergent fiber digestibility of the canola biodiesel press cakes was higher than the mustard biodiesel press cakes. Ether extract digestibility and nitrogen retention were significantly higher for birds fed canola biodiesel press cake compared with canola meal and mustard biodiesel press cake. Body weight gain and feed intake did not differ between birds fed canola or mustard biodiesel press cake and canola meal. In addition, there was no significant difference in body weight gain or feed intake between birds fed diets containing canola or mustard biodiesel press cake. Feed conversion was significantly improved for birds fed either canola or mustard biodiesel press cake compared with canola meal. Mortality was unaffected by treatment. Since the performance of broilers fed canola biodiesel press cakes was essentially the same as that of broilers fed canola meal, it is difficult to justify a premium to be paid for canola biodiesel press cake over that paid for canola meal. In addition, there was no difference in the performance of broilers fed biodiesel press cake obtained from canola or mustard seed. As mustard seeds are generally available at a lower price than canola seed, there may be some incentive to use mustard rather than canola seed for producing biodiesel press cake for use in poultry production.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian-Australasian Journal of Animal SciencesSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207