MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047740149 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.3365

Riboflavin content in lupine seeds and blood plasma riboflavin status in broilers fed diets containing high levels of lupine seeds

2008· article· en· W2047740149 on OpenAlexaff
B. Olkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRiboflavinBroilerFood scienceLupinus angustifoliusAnimal scienceNutrientBiologyChemistrySoybean mealAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: The potential of lupine as a source of protein and other nutrients in poultry has attracted considerable attention in countries dependent on imports of soybean meal (SBM), as well as in organic farming. Nutritional aspects of riboflavin in lupines are poorly understood. This work evaluated riboflavin content in whole and dehulled seeds of three lupines ( L. albus, L. angustifolius, L. luteus ) and riboflavin status in broiler fed diets containing high levels of lupine seeds in comparison to SBM. RESULTS: Riboflavin is concentrated mainly in lupine cotyledons, predominantly as flavin mononucleotide. Its content in whole seeds ranged from 2.07 to 2.70 mg kg −1 , and was comparable to content in SBM (2.35 mg kg −1 ). In comparison to the SBM‐fed group, broilers fed lupine diets showed higher plasma riboflavin ( P < 0.05), but their growth rate and feed intake parameters were significantly lower ( P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Lupine seeds contain moderate to high levels of riboflavin. Feeding diets containing high levels of lupine seeds did not have adverse effects on plasma riboflavin status in broilers. Poor performance of broilers fed lupine diets is not associated with inadequacy of riboflavin. Copyright © 2008 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207