Feeding broiler chickens wheat and barley diets containing whole, ground and pelleted grain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of grain form (whole, mash, or pelleted) on the live performance of broiler chickens was determined. In the first trial, six regimens compared the feeding of whole wheat: 1) 0% of diet for the whole trial (0 to 48 d); 2) 5% at 6 d, 20% at 13 d, 35% at 27 d; 3) 5% at 6 d, 35% at 13 d, 50% at 27 d; 4) 5% at 0 d, 20% at 6 d, 35% at 13 d, 50% at 27 d; 5) 5% at 6 d, 50% at 13 d, 65% at 27 d; and 6) 5% at 0 d, 20% at 6 d, 50% at 13 d, 65% at 27d. Each feeding regimen was replicated with steam-pelleted and mash supplements. None of the feed was diluted. The second trial was similar, except that whole barley was fed instead of whole wheat. Feeding mash supplements slowed growth at all ages and lowered mortality caused by sudden death syndrome and ascites plus right heart failure. Cumulative feed:gain was increased by feeding mash supplements in Trial 1. Total weight gain was unaffected by feeding whole wheat but was decreased by most levels of whole barley. Whole-grain diets increased cumulative feed:gain. Feeding whole wheat decreased skeletal problems. Whole-grain diets increased gizzard size but did not alter carcass yield. Feeding whole-grain and mash supplements caused at least a temporary loss in growth rate and feed efficiency but in some cases improved bird health.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".