MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075407934 · doi:10.1093/ps/81.12.1850

Influence of whole barley and grit on live performance and health of turkey toms

2002· article· en· W2075407934 on OpenAlexafffund
CD Bennett, HL Classen, K Schwean, C. Riddell

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - SaskatchewanUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsGritGizzardAnimal scienceWhole wheatPelletsWeight gainBiologyNutrientWhole grainsHordeum vulgareAgronomyFood scienceBody weightPoaceaeEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Live performance to 96 d was compared for 1,584 turkey toms reared on diets containing four levels of whole barley and two levels of insoluble grit (0 or 9 g/bird per wk). Nutrient specifications for all diets were similar. The six dietary treatments were 1) 0% whole barley plus grit, 2) Treatment 1 minus grit, 3) grit plus 5% whole barley at 0 d increasing to 35% by 19 d, 4) grit plus 5% whole barley at 0 d increasing to 50% by 19 d, 5) Treatment 4 minus grit, and 6) grit plus 5% whole barley at 19 d increasing to 50% by 40 d. The concentrate blended with the whole barley was fed as crumbles or pellets. Nutrients were not diluted. Compared to the control treatments, feeding 35% or more whole barley temporarily reduced weight gain and increased feed:gain prior to 68 d. Cumulative weight gain was reduced in Treatments 3 and 5 compared to treatments in which no barley was fed. Cumulative feed:gain was increased in Treatment 5 compared to Treatments 2 and 3. Total mortality and leg and skeletal problems were reduced in treatments where whole grain slowed early growth rate. Feeding grit had no effect on the live performance of birds fed similar levels of whole barley. In treatments in which whole barley was introduced at 0 d, gizzard pH was decreased at 18 d, and gizzard weight was increased at 32 d. Jejunal viscosity was unaffected by dietary treatment.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207