A study of nutrient digestibility and growth performance of broiler chicks fed hairy and hairless canary seed (Phalaris canariensis L.) products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A nutrient retention study and a growth study were conducted with broiler chickens to evaluate the nutritive value and potential toxicity of 2 hairless canary seed products-hulled seed and groats (cultivar CDC Maria), and one hairy hulled canary seed (cultivar Keet). Each treatment was replicated 6 times (6 groups of 4 birds each). The hairless canary seed groat, hairless hulled canary seed, and the hairy hulled canary seed contained 24.5, 21.8, and 16.3% CP; 7.1, 5.8, and 6.6% ether extract; 1.5, 14.2, and 12.3% acid detergent fiber, and 3,867, 3,205 and 3,292 kcal/kg of AME(n), on a DM basis, respectively. The hairless canary seed groat, hairless hulled canary seed, and the hairy hulled canary seed protein comprised, respectively, 0.49, 0.33, and 0.33% lysine (DM basis), which was 79, 78, and 67% digestible (apparent ileal); 0.65, 0.53, and 0.60% cysteine (DM basis), which was 86, 87, and 85% apparent ileal digestible; and 0.40, 0.30, and 0.25% methionine (DM basis), which was 89, 90, and 86% apparent ileal digestible. In the second study, a 35-d feeding study with male broiler chickens was conducted. The canary seed products were compared with a Canadian Western Red Spring wheat control. Each treatment was replicated 6 times (6 groups of 4 birds each). The test ingredients comprised 50% of the corn/soybean diets. The birds fed the hulled canary seed (hairy or hairless) had similar weight gain, feed intake, and G:F to those fed wheat. There were no statistically significant (P = 0.05) differences in the weights of the bursa, heart, kidneys, liver, spleen, or the pancreas, nor was there any effect on serum lactate dehydrogenase or creatine kinase. The data indicated that feeding hulled canary seed increased the number of gizzard ulcers (P < 0.01). It was concluded that canary seed does not contain anti-nutritional components that negatively affect broiler performance or bird health. However, the canary seed hulls may damage the gizzard lining.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".