MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017086799 · doi:10.4141/a00-061

The effect of storage of cereal grain and enzyme supplementation on measurements of AME and broiler chick performance

2001· article· en· W2017086799 on OpenAlexaffvenue
T. Scott, Alice Pierce

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroilerCereal grainWheat grainBioassayBiologyFood scienceAnimal scienceFeed conversion ratioChemistryBody weightAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a concern that feeding newly harvested cereal grain results in poor performance in poultry. A broiler chick apparent metabolizable energy (AME) bioassay was used to measure changes in feeding value of wheat (n = 14), hulless (n = 10) and hulled (n = 14) barley with or without a commercial enzyme appropriate for wheat- or barley-based diets. In the broiler chick bioassay, four pens of six male broiler chicks were fed ad lib, from 4 to 17 d, diets containing 80% of a test cereal grain and a high-protein basal mixture containing 1% “celite” as an acid-insoluble ash marker. Each of the cereal-grain-based diets, with or without enzyme, was tested within 3 mo of harvest and again 6 mo later. With cereal grain storage there were consistent (P < 0.05) increases in feed intake (FI) between 4 and 17 d and body weight (BW) at 17 d of age with wheat-based diets fed wit h (12.5 and 16.9%, respectively, for FI and BW) or without (16.1 and 22.7%) enzyme. In hulless barley diets without enzyme, there was a significant improvement in BW (7.5%) with storage, while storage had a significant effect on FI and BW (2.9 and 6.3%, respectively) when fed with enzyme. For all other barley diets there was a positive effect of storage on FI and BW, but it was not significant. Feed conversion ratios decreased marginally (P > 0.05) with storage of cereal grain. AME of diets was improved within each period by enzyme supplementation. However, there were measurable decreases (P < 0.05) in AME with storage of cereal grains for the three cereal grains with enzyme supplementation (ranging from –3.2 to –8.2%). The r2 of the above measurements for the different sources of cereal grain between storage periods ranged from 0.65 to 0.94, indicating that the relative ranking of the cereal grains, with respect to feeding value, remained similar during storage. Increases in FI with storage were not significantly related to the attempts of the broiler chicks, to maintain metabolizable energy (ME) intake. Therefore, this increases our concerns that “factors” in newly harvested cereal grains may exist and that they may limit voluntary feed intake and/or growth. Key words: Cereal grain storage, AME, broiler performance, wheat, barley

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)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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