A comparison of grinding processes and wet feeding of wheat-based diets on AME, production, and gastrointestinal tract development of broiler chicks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment studied the effect of grind mill type [hammer (HM) or attrition (AM)], grind size (5.6 mm 4.8 mm, and 2.4 mm) and wheat type [Durum or Hard Red Spring (HRS)] on the performance, energy retention (AME), and the gut development of broilers fed these diets with or without 1.2 g water -1 g dry feed added. Twenty-four dietary treatments (2 grind types × 3 grind sizes × 2 wheat types × wet or dry feeding) were each fed to four cages of six male broilers from 1 to 17 d of age. Wet diets were prepared daily. Feeding diets with water increased 17 d body weight and feed intake of broilers compared with feeding the diets dry. Body weight and feed intake of broilers fed the HM diets were greater than those of broilers fed diets containing wheat processed by AM. Feed intake and FCR with HRS-based diets were higher than those for Durum-based diets. The AME for Durum was higher than for HRS and the ME efficiency (kcal g -1 BW) was greater, indicating a lower efficiency. The AME intake of HM ground wheat was higher than for that for wheat ground with the AM. The type of grinding, the wheat type, and the addition of water all affected the length and weight of the digestive system, likely through their effects on the rate of water absorption and passage through the gut. Particle size did not affect any measurement. Hammer milling produced a uniform particle size and less fines and may be better suited for processing wheat in broiler diets. Key words: Broiler, wheat, wet feeding, AME, gut development
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".