Fatty acid and nitrogen utilization of processed flaxseed by adult chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effect of flaxseed processing on the utilization of fatty acids and nitrogen were examined in adult chicken. Two batches (A and B) of flaxseed were processed by autoclaving, pelleting, or microwave roasting. Thirty grams of the ground ingredient was given to fasted Leghorn roosters. The apparent digestibility of total fatty acids of raw flaxseeds A and B were 660 and 490 g kg−1, respectively. Its improvement (p < 0.05) reached 29% for flaxseed A after three‐times repeated pelleting. Similarly, it was 39% (p < 0.05) for flaxseed B after 4 min of microwave roasting. The improvement in the absorption of major individual fatty acids in flaxseed followed the same pattern as that of total fatty acids. The apparent digestibility of linolenic acid in extruded full‐fat soybean was much higher (p < 0.05) than that in raw flaxseed A, but not that in processed flaxseed A (p > 0.05). Furthermore, roosters given canola seed had significantly higher true nitrogen utilization (p < 0.05) than those fed raw flaxseed A. This difference was reduced or non‐existent (p > 0.05) with processed flaxseed. Proper flaxseed processing effectively increases the utilization of major fatty acids and nitrogen in flaxseed for adult chicken. Copyright © 2005 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".