Impact of wet feeding wheat-based diets with or without enzyme on broiler chick performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies were conducted to determine the effect of wheat source on voluntary feed intake when diets were offered in a wet or dry form. The first experiment was designed to establish if a mould inhibitor was necessary. The second experiment allowed more extensive screening of wheat types to determine if there is a genetic component in wheat that explains the differences observed in exp. 1. Experiment 1 was based on two wheat cultivars [Hard Red Spring (HRS) and Durum]. Each wheat was ground, one portion was used as is, the other pelleted and re-ground. The four wheat sources were included at 80% of a standard bioassay diet (with enzyme) and each diet was fed with or without propionic acid. The eight diets were fed ad libitum as is or with 1.2 g water per gram of feed. The wet diets were prepared daily and all diets were fed to four groups of six male broilers from 1 to 17 d of age. The second experiment utilized three cultivars each of HRS and Durum wheat fed in similar bioassay diets with no pre-pelleting or added mould inhibitor; each diet was fed with or without enzyme. Each of the 12 diets in the second experiment was fed with and without 1.2 g water per gram of feed to six groups of eight male broilers from 1 to 21 d of age. For both experiments, the daily intake of feed, on an air-dried basis, was detennined for each diet and used to calculate feed conversion for the respective feeding periods. Experiment 1 showed no effect of supplementing the wheat-based diets with propionic acid. This same experiment also clearly showed that feed intake was increased with wet feeding and there were significantly greater effects when HRS as compared to Durum wheat was fed. Experiment 2 clearly established that there are distinct differences in voluntary feed intake with wet feeding utilizing HRS as compared to Durum wheat. This experiment indicated that wet feeding mimics enzyme supplementation with regard to lowering digesta viscosity, but it is clearly unique from enzyme supplementation with its large effect on feed intake and growth. These studies support our hypothesis that variability in hydration rate of cereal-based diets may limit intake. Key words: Wheat, wet feeding, enzymes, feed intake, 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 | 0.000 | 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".