Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canola meal (CM) is a less expensive protein ingredient than soybean meal (SBM) for livestock feed formulation. Canola processing has a major impact on the nutritional quality of the meal, limitations in the dietary inclusions are associated with reduced meal quality because of overheating during processing. Crude protein (CP) and amino acid (AA) digestibility are affected by differences in processing methods and conditions causing a variation in the chemical and nutritive value of the meal. As a result, protein quality of CM can be verified using standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of AA in young broiler chickens to ascertain values that are reliable for efficient feed formulation when considering high inclusion levels of CM in poultry diet. Two separate experiments were conducted to measure SID of AA of CM sourced from 14 crushing plants across Canada, as well as to determine the effect of varying inclusion levels of CM on growth performance and nutrient digestibility of young broiler chickens. There were significant variations in SID of Lys (86.3 vs. 74.2%), Trp (94.5 vs. 76.7%) and Thr (87.3 vs.71.6%) of CM for broiler chickens. Whereas, Met (91.8 vs. 87.4%) and Cys (81.8 vs. 73.7%) were not significantly affected but Arg, which is known as a conditionally essential AA, varied significantly (92.0 vs. 83.8%). Lysine (1.97 vs. 1.53%), Thr (1.64 vs. 1.24%) and Met (0.68 vs. 0.46%) as well as other AA varied significantly in their standardized ileal digestible contents, while a regression analysis showed a significant relationship among AA suspected to be heat sensitive. In the growth performance experiment, overall result revealed that neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content of diet differed substantially with increased levels of CM but bird performance was not significantly affected. Energy utilization varied with age of birds while NDF digestibility was not affected by incremental levels of CM inclusion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".