MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988757150 · doi:10.4141/cjas07044

Nutritional value of diets for broiler chickens as affected by fat source, amylose level and diet processing

2007· article· en· W1988757150 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
O. Zimonja, Anita Stevnebø, B. Svihus

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmyloseFood scienceStarchBroilerChemistryPelletBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments were conducted to investigate effects of fat source, fat level, amylose level and processing technique on technical pellet quality and broiler performance. In both experiments wheat-barley-based diets were either pelleted or expanded and pelleted using the same production conditions. In exp. 1 soy oil and akofeed fat at inclusion levels of 25 and 50 g kg -1 , respectively, were tested. Akofeed fat containing diets resulted in significant (P < 0.001) improvement in pellet durability compared with soy oil containing diets under both processing methods and both fat levels. As a consequence of higher content of amylose-lipid complexes, feeding the akofeed fat containing diets resulted in significant reduction (P < 0.05) of starch digestibility at jejunual level. In exp. 2, three barley cultivars with varying amylose content were tested. Total tract starch digestibility was higher (P < 0.0001) for normal amylose (NA) containing diets compared with low amylose (LA) and high amylose (HA) containing diets. In vitro results, however, showed highest starch degradation for LA diets compared with NA and HA diets, indicating that the in vitro method did not seem to be a good predictor of starch digestibility for broiler chickens. Key words: Starch; Barley; Amylose-lipid complex; Akofeed fat; Soy oil; Expander-pelleting treatment

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations40
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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