Effects of expeller pressed camelina meal and/or canola meal on digestibility, performance and fatty acid composition of broiler chickens fed wheat–soybean meal-based diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment was conducted to compare the effects of graded levels of camelina meal and/or canola meal on digestibility, performance and fatty acid composition of broiler chickens. A total of 180-day-old male broiler chicks were randomly assigned to one of the six treatments. The control diet was based on wheat and soybean meal and contained 15% canola meal. The experimental diets contained 3%, 6%, 9%, 12% or 15% camelina meal added at the expense of canola meal. Chromic oxide (0.35%) was added to all diets as a digestibility marker. On the morning of day 22, birds were killed by cervical dislocation and their abdominal fat pad was obtained. The apparent total tract digestibility of dry matter and energy as well as nitrogen retention all declined linearly (p < 0.01) with increasing levels of dietary camelina meal. Weight gain (p < 0.01) and feed intake (p = 0.08) were linearly reduced as the level of camelina meal in the diet increased. Feed conversion ratio was also negatively affected by camelina meal (p < 0.01). Birds fed diets containing 15% camelina meal had significantly higher (p < 0.01) levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids, total n-3 fatty acids, total n-6 fatty acids and a significantly lower ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids (p < 0.01) than birds fed canola meal. In conclusion, the inclusion of camelina meal in their diet significantly reduced the growth and feed conversion ratio of broilers compared with canola meal. However, the potential to incorporate n-3 fatty acids into carcass tissues may provide some justification for including camelina meal in poultry rations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".