Nutrient digestibility and performance of broiler chickens fed regular or green canola biodiesel press cakes produced using a micro‐scale process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: World interest in biodiesel production from canola seed is expanding. There is little information on the nutritive value of biodiesel by‐products produced from micro‐scale production processes. Hence this trial was conducted to determine the nutritional value of regular and green canola biodiesel press cake for broilers. RESULTS: The digestibility of dry matter, neutral detergent fibre, and nitrogen retention were higher (P < 0.05) for birds fed regular or green canola press cake compared with canola meal. Ether extract digestibility was higher (P < 0.05) for birds fed regular press cake than canola meal, while green press cake and canola meal did not differ. There was no improvement in body weight gain (P > 0.05), while feed conversion was only modestly improved (P < 0.05) by the inclusion of regular or green canola press cake. CONCLUSIONS: Since the performance of broilers fed canola biodiesel press cakes was similar to those fed canola meal, it is difficult to justify a premium to be paid for canola press cake over canola meal. In addition, there was no difference in the performance of broilers fed biodiesel press cake obtained from green or regular canola seed. As green seeds are generally available at a lower price than regular seed, there may be some incentive to choose green canola seed for producing biodiesel and biodiesel press cake for use in poultry production. Copyright © 2009 Society of Chemical Industry
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".