Evaluation of wet-feeding wheat-based diets containing<i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>to broiler chickens
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".