Fermentation of flaxseed cake increases its nutritional value and utilization in ducklings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flaxseed cake (FSC) is a potential alternative feed source in poultry. However, cyanogenetic glycosides limit its widespread use in feed. In this study, we optimized the parameters of fermentation by Aspergillus niger and Candida utilis and compared the growth performance, serum lipid parameters, and organ indexes of Cherry Valley duckling feed with unfermented FSC (UFSC) or fermented FSC (FFSC). A total of 420 one-day-old male Cherry Valley ducklings were randomly assigned into a 1 plus 2 × 3 factorial design including 2 different FSC resources (UFSC and FFSC) at 3 levels (50, 100, or 150 g/kg) for 3 wk. Each treatment group included 6 pens with 10 ducklings per pen. The hydrocyanic acid (HCN) level was reduced under the following conditions: 1:0.8 FSC:water (w:v), inoculum ratio of 1 mL:1 mL, 30°C, and 60 h. FFSC had higher crude protein (CP) and calcium (Ca) levels and lower HCN levels compared with UFSC (P < 0.05). There was no interactive effect between FSC sources and levels on growth performance. Final body weight (FBW), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and average daily gain (ADG) in UFSC groups and ADFI in FFSC groups decreased linearly with increasing FSC levels (P < 0.01). There were no differences in FBW, ADG, or feed:gain ratio (F/G) among FFSC groups, and all 7 FSC groups had no differences in the F/G ratio (P > 0.05). Dietary FSC supplementation decreased triglyceride (TG) (P < 0.01), total cholesterol (TC) (P < 0.01), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (P = 0.01), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (P < 0.01). No interactive effect between FSC levels and sources was observed for serum TG, TC, HDL, or LDL. Ducklings fed FFSC had lower TG (P < 0.01), TC (P = 0.05), and LDL (P < 0.01) levels compared with ducklings fed UFSC. The 150 g/kg FFSC group had the lowest TG, TC, HDL, and LDL levels among all 7 groups. Flaxseed cake supplementation decreased the relative weight of the left breast, but FFSC increased the relative weight of the gizzard compared with UFSC. In conclusion, fermentation could increase the nutritional value and usage of FSC in ducklings.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".