Efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy for carcass energy retention in broiler chickens fed different wheat cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six different wheat cultivar grain samples were grown in both the 1993 and 1996 harvest years, and their concentrations of nitrogen-corrected, apparent metabolizable energy (AMEn) were determined and carcass energy retentions compared when fed nutritionally complete diets for broiler chicks. The AMEn protocol involved a 14 d feeding period with growing chickens, with all excreta collected for the final 96 h. The carcass energy retention protocol involved a comparative slaughter technique in which growing chickens were given a wheat sample in a nutritionally complete diet at 90% of ad libitum intake. There was a significant (P = 0.023) linear relationship between energy retention and AMEn, although an r2 = 0.42 indicated that there was a substantial amount of unexplained variation. The ratio of energy retained per kg of additional wheat (kcal kg–1) eaten to AMEn (kcal kg–1) intake ranged from 0.49 –0.56 in the 12 wheat samples. There were no significant (P > 0.05) relationships between the proximate nutrient or polysaccharide compositions of the wheat samples and the ratio of energy retained to AME intake. However, there was a significant, (r2 = 0.40; P = 0.028) negative, linear relationship between the water extract viscosity of the wheat sample (log transformed) and this ratio. Key words: Metabolizable energy, energy retention, wheat, poultry
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".