Evaluation of wet-feeding wheat-based diets containing<i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>to broiler chickens
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. This experiment investigated the effects of water and Saccharomyces cerevisiae added to wheat-based diets on gastrointestinal, blood and performance parameters of broiler chickens. 2. A total of 160 one-d-old male broiler chicks were given air-dry or wet diets, with or without S. cerevisiae supplementation (0 and 20 g/kg air-dry feed) ad libitum to 42 d. 3. Feeding broilers with a diet mixed with water in a ratio of 1·2 : 1·0 increased body weight, feed intake, abdominal fat, carcase weight, feed transit time and blood HDL (high density lipoprotein) (without yeast). Supplementation with S. cerevisiae increased DM digestibility but reduced ileal pH, ileal coliform population and abdominal fat content. 4. There was a significant interaction between S. cerevisiae and wet feeding, with S. cerevisiae supplementation inducing a significant increase in body weight and feed intake but a reduction of relative abdominal fat and ileal pH of broilers fed on wet diets. 5. It is concluded that wet feeding improved growth performance by increasing feed intake and that the addition of a culture of S. cerevisiae had a growth stimulating effect, as the inclusion of yeast in wet wheat-based broiler diets generated greater responses than yeast in dry-based diets.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it