Interaction of wheat micronization and cultivar on its feeding value for broilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three experiments were conducted to investigate the interaction between micronization and cultivar of wheat on grain chemical composition and feeding value for chickens. Micronized whole grain feeding was evaluated in one experiment using inclusion levels of 10 and 50% for starter and grower diets, respectively. Dietary enzyme was used in two other experiments to study its interaction with micronization and genotype of wheat. Wheat cultivars Genesis, Kyle, and Katepwa were micronized at 100°C for 50 s and incorporated into broiler diets. Micronization improved overall feed efficiency, but did not always increase body weight. When feeding whole grain to birds, micronization improved feed efficiency from 21 to 42 d and 0 to 42 d, but did not affect final body weight. Micronization of wheat cultivars reduced early growth rate of all birds, regardless of wheat form in the diets. Micronization did not impact AME and digesta viscosity. Cultivar Kyle had a higher dietary AME and a lower digesta viscosity, and resulted in feed efficiency and weight gain values superior to those of either Genesis or Katepwa (exps. 2 and 3). Enzyme increased weight gain, feed efficiency and dietary AME, and decreased digesta viscosity. Key words: wheat, cultivars, micronization, AME, broilers
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".