MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610501625 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2015-0207

Meal residual oil level and heat treatment after oil extraction affects the nutritive value of expeller pressed canola meal for broiler chickens

2017· article· en· W2610501625 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dervan D.S.L. Bryan, Janice MacIsaac, Bruce Rathgeber, Nancy McLean, Derek Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmenCanolaBroilerChemistryValineFood scienceMealIsoleucineAnimal scienceAmino acidLeucineBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This experiment determined the effects of expeller-pressed canola meal (EPCM) residual oil (10% vs. 14%) and heat treatment at 115 °C for 25 min on the nitrogen-corrected apparent metabolizable energy (AMEn) value and amino acid (AA) digestibility for broilers. Day-old male chicks (six per cage) were fed six test diets (five cages per diet) from 14 to 21 d using the substitution method in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Increasing EPCM oil content from 10% to 14% increased (P < 0.05) EPCM AMEn value by 287 kcal kg−1. There was heat treatment by oil level interaction (P < 0.05) on standardized ileal digestibility of arginine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, phenylalanine, threonine, and valine for EPCM in which heat treatment of the low oil EPCM reduced (P ≤ 0.0012) the digestibility of all these AA, but heat treatment of the high oil EPCM only reduced lysine digestibility. In conclusion, heat treatment of EPCM reduced its AMEn value and digestibility of some AA. The AA digestibility of EPCM with low oil was reduced more by heat treatment than EPCM with high oil content, implying that the negative effects of heat treatment on AA digestibility increases with a decrease in residual oil content in EPCM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207