Nutritional value of wheat screenings for broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two trials were conducted to study the nutritional value of two wheat screening samples in broiler diets. Experiment 1 evaluated the chemical composition, and energy and amino acid digestibility while, exp. 2 evaluated the performance of 1980 female broiler chickens, housed in straw litter pens, and fed four different levels of the two wheat screening samples. In exp. 2, the wheat screening samples replaced 0%, 25%, 50% and 100% for sample 1 and 0, 25, and 50% for sample 2 of the wheat in diets fed to broilers. Each treatment was replicated six times with 55 birds per replication. The metabolizable energy, and protein content, and mean ileal amino acid digestibility were 3107 kcal kg -1 , 15.77%, 83.3%, and 3023 kcal kg -1 , 15.19%, 80.4% for wheat screening samples 1 and 2, respectively. The samples contained 90.5 and 88.2% wheat and the major weed seed in both samples was wild buckwheat, which was 4.5 and 6.3% in samples 1 and 2, respectively. In the broiler feeding trial, no significant differences were found between the wheat diet and those containing wheat screenings with regards to growth, feed efficiency, and mortality. There were variations in the composition of wheat screening samples; however, in this study, these variations did not significantly affect the performance of broiler chickens. Wheat screenings totally replaced wheat in balanced broiler diets without negatively affecting performance. Key words: Broiler chicken, feed, wheat screenings, wild buckwheat.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".