Nutrient retention and growth performance of chicks given low-phytate conventional or hull-less barleys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. The experimental barley samples included 4 hulled and one hull-less low-phytate barley cultivars and two commercial barley varieties as controls. 2. The diets were provided in meal form, with the experimental barley samples constituting the cereal source. Two additional treatments were added for each of the control varieties in which intermediate and recommended levels of phosphorus were provided. 3. A completely randomised design was used with 5 replicates of 5 chicks per treatment. The chicks were grown from 2 to 14 d of age with excreta collected over the subsequent 3 d. 4. Although total phosphorus levels were similar for all barley samples, there were large differences in their phytate content, which ranged from less than 0.5 to 13.8 g/kg. M2 955 hulled barley exhibited the lowest phytate and the highest phosphorus solubility. 5. There was a negative linear relationship between grain phytate and weight gain and with bone ash. The low-phytate hulled barleys M2 955 and the low-phytate hull-less barley (lpa1-1H) gave better feed conversion (8%) than controls. The hull-less low-phytate barley gave significantly higher total phosphorus (18%) and soluble phosphorus retention (23%) than the hull-less control. The low-phytate samples tended to give lower excreta phosphorus levels (total and soluble), but the effect was significant only for the hull-less samples. Amino acid retention was significantly higher for the low-phytate hull-less barley than the control (4%). 6. Overall, the results suggest that using low-phytate barley can result in similar growth while using less supplemental phosphorus, reducing waste phosphorus by more than 50%.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".