Canadian pearl millet: a potential alternative grain to corn in broiler production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies were conducted to investigate the effects of partially or totally replacing corn with pearl millet (PM) in broiler diets, alone or in combination with exogenous enzymes, on growth performance, ileal dry matter (DM), CP and amino acid digestibility, and intestinal digesta viscosity, morphological development and microbial populations. In experiment 1, dietary treatments included: a standard corn-soybean meal diet and one in which corn was replaced with 25, 50, 75 or 100% PM. In experiment 2, dietary treatments were: 1) a standard corn-soybean meal diet; 2) a PM-soybean meal diet; 3) diet 1 + exogenous enzymes; and 4) diet 2 + exogenous enzymes. All diets were formulated to be isonitrogenous and isocaloric. PM diets contained less soybean meal because PM grains were richer in CP and amino acids than corn. Total replacement of corn with PM significantly improved (P < 0.05) growth and feed conversion. However, there were no additional benefits due to enzyme supplementation. Feeding broilers PM diets did not have any detrimental effects on digesta viscosity, villus height, villus width and villus surface area of the jejunum. On the contrary, in experiment 2, villi were longer (P < 0.05) in PM-fed birds than those fed corn diets with or without enzymes. Intestinal loads of E. coli were not altered by any of the dietary treatments. But, in experiment 2, both PM diets, with or without enzymes, significantly increased (P < 0.05) Lactobacilli loads. In both studies, DM, CP and amino acids digestibility were similar between corn and PM diets. However, enzyme supplementation to corn or PM diets increased (P < 0.05) DM and CP digestibility. Amino acid digestibility was increased (P < 0.05) only in birds fed the corn diet containing enzymes in comparison with those fed the corn diet without enzymes. In conclusion, total replacement of corn with PM in broiler diets caused significant improvements in growth parameters, and Lactobacilli populations and villus development of the intestines. Additionally, enzyme supplementation to PM diets increased intestinal DM and CP digestibility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".