Nutritional Evaluation of Canola Protein Concentrate for Broiler Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This trial was conducted to determine the effects of including canola protein concentrate in diets fed to broiler chickens on nutrient digestibility and broiler performance (0-21 days).A total of 180, day-old, male broiler chicks weighing an average of 52.8±0.6 g were assigned to one of six dietary treatments in a completely randomized design.The control diet was based on corn and soybean meal and contained 15% canola meal.The experimental diets contained 3, 6, 9, 12 or 15% canola protein concentrate added at the expense of canola meal.There were five birds per pen and six replicate pens per treatment.Feed and water were available ad libitum throughout the 21-day experiment.Chromic oxide (0.35%) was added to all diets as a digestibility marker and was fed throughout the experimental period.The digestibility of dry matter, energy and phosphorus increased linearly (p<0.01) with increasing levels of canola protein concentrate.Although nutrient digestibility was higher for birds fed diets containing canola protein concentrate, these improvements did not translate into improvements in broiler performance.Weight gain was unaffected (p = 0.24) by level of canola protein concentrate.Feed intake was significantly increased (p<0.01) with the result that feed conversion tended to be poorer (p = 0.07) for birds fed diets containing canola protein concentrate.Mortality was also unaffected (p = 0.56) by dietary treatment.(
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".