MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994964282 · doi:10.4141/a01-008

Measurements of enzyme response with hulless barley-based diets full-fed to Leghorn and broiler chicks or restricted-fed broiler chicks

2001· article· en· W1994964282 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
T. Scott, M.A. Leslie, Ahmad Karimi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsBroilerBiologyAnimal scienceNutrientFeed conversion ratioFood scienceBody weightEndocrinologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Broiler chicks fed diets high in soluble non-starch polysaccharides (NSP; e.g., wheat- and/or barley-based diets) have a higher capacity to ingest, digest and absorb nutrients when diets are supplemented with appropriate NSP enzymes. However, this same enzyme response is typically reduced or non-significant in older birds, Leghorn chicks and turkey poults. We hypothesise that the enzyme response in the latter classes of poultry is reduced because feed intake is lower in comparison to feed intake by broilers. In the present study, the hypothesis that restricted feeding of broilers would reduce the enzyme response typically observed in full-fed broilers was tested. Two experiments were conducted to determine the feeding value of hulless barley supplemented or not supplemented with enzyme (Avizyme 1100, Finnfeeds Int, UK). In Study 1, eight sources of hulless barley were included at 80% in each diet and fed to four groups of six male broilers or Leghorn chicks from 4 to 17 d of age. The response to enzyme in hulless barley-based diets by broilers was approximately twofold that of Leghorns for growth and feed intake. The Leghorns had higher digesta viscosity than broilers, although the relative drop in digesta viscosity with enzyme supplementation was equal. In a second study (Study 2) broiler chicks were fed one of four diets (two hulless barley cultivars with or without enzyme) at three feed allotment levels (ad libitum, R1 and R2) from 4 to 21 d of age. The R1 and R2 feed allotments were pre-determined fixed daily feed amounts. Actual feed restriction in the R1 group was only achieved for diets with, but not without, an enzyme. At the lowest feed allotment (R2) actual feed intake of diets with or without enzyme were lower than that recorded for ad libitum fed birds. Study 2 demonstrated that restricted-fed broilers had a lower growth response to enzyme supplementation compared to birds allowed ad libitum intake, in part due to improved retention of energy, either directly in response to feed restriction or because digesta viscosity in diets without enzyme was lowered. Although digesta viscosity of restricted-fed birds was lower, it is still high enough to be considered problematic. In determining feeding value of cereal grains or supplements such as enzymes, especially those directed for use with broilers, it is imperative that a broiler chick bioassay be used and that they have ad libitum access to the diets. Key words: Enzyme, hulless barley, viscosity, feed intake

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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