Comparison of corn-based and Canadian pearl millet-based diets on performance, digestibility, villus morphology, and digestive microbial populations in broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was undertaken to examine the effects of partially or totally replacing corn with pearl millet in broiler diets on growth performance, jejunal digesta viscosity, and histomorphological parameters, ileal CP digestibility, and cecal microbial populations. Two hundred 1-d-old male Ross 508 broilers were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 isonitrogenous and isocaloric dietary treatments (8 cage replicates; 5 birds/cage) and grown over a 42-d experimental period. Dietary treatments included a standard corn-soybean meal diet and one in which the total amount of grain (corn + pearl millet) consisted of 25, 50, 75, or 100% pearl millet. All diets contained chromic oxide (0.4%) as an indigestible marker. Body weight and feed intake were recorded weekly throughout 42 d. At d 14, 28, and 42, 8 birds/treatment (1 bird/cage) were killed for sample collection and analysis. In comparison with corn, pearl millet grain contained higher CP (14.48 vs. 7.35%, on a DM basis) but slightly lower ME (3,093 vs. 3,355 kcal/kg, on a DM basis). Total replacement of corn by pearl millet significantly (P < 0.05) improved BW and feed conversion. Moreover, in comparison with the standard diet, feeding broilers pearl millet-based diets had no detrimental effects on digesta viscosity, villus height, villus width, and villus surface area of the jejunum. Ileal CP digestibility and cecal concentrations of Escherichia coli, lactobacilli, and bifidobacteria were also similar between birds fed corn and pearl millet. It was concluded that substituting corn for pearl millet in broiler diets can improve production responses without causing any adverse effects on nutrient digestibility or bird health.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".