The effects of extrusion of wheat distillers dried grains with solubles with or without an enzyme cocktail on performance of turkey hen poults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to determine if extrusion (EX) or enzymes (E) could overcome the restrictions (e.g., high fiber) of feeding wheat distillers dried grain with solubles (wDDGS) and improve its nutritional value for feeding turkeys. Two starter diets with either 0 or 30% wDDGS were formulated to meet or exceed the nutrient requirements of the Hybrid Converter female turkeys. The 30% wDDGS diet was substituted with either non-extruded (EX-) or extruded (EX+) wDDGS to produce three basal diets [0% wDDGS (EX-) or 30% wDDGS (EX-/EX+)]. Diets were blended to obtain 15% wDDGS. In the respective treatments, only wDDGS was extruded (temperature; 118°C, retention; 15 sec, total moisture; 25% and pressure 33 bar). The respective experimental diets were supplemented with/without an enzyme cocktail (E; 0.5 g/kg). Test diets were fed from 7-21 d in a completely randomized design. In Experiment 1, a total of 210 turkey hen poults were fed diets containing 0, 15, or 30% wDDGS (EX-) with or without enzyme (E+/E-). Body weight (BW) and feed intake (FI) were significantly higher for 0% wDDGSE-. Nitrogen retention (NR) and apparent metabolizable energy (AME) for the 30% wDDGSE- was significantly higher than other treatments at 21 d. The results indicated significant main effects of E and an interaction between wDDGS level and E. In Experiment 2, 280 turkey hen poults were fed 8 diets [15/30% wDDGS (E+/E-), (EX-/EX+)]. The level of wDDGS had a significant effect on BW, FI and gain:feed; 15% inclusion was superior to 30%. There were significant 2- and 3-way interactions for AME and NR at 21 d due to differences in enzyme response with 15 or 30% wDDGS inclusion and/or extrusion of wDDGS. As high as 15% wDDGS can be incorporated in turkey hen diets. There were no beneficial effects of EX or E on poult performance.
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".