Effectiveness of using a hybrid rye cultivar in feeding broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of hybrid rye in rations for broiler chickens. The study covered 160 chickens split into four equal groups [I (control), II, III, IV] and kept for 42 d. Rye was introduced into the above-mentioned diets as a partial substitute for maize in the following quantities: (I), no rye; (II), 5% rye in starter feed and 10% rye in grower and finisher feed; (III), 10% rye in starter feed and 20% rye in grower and finisher feed; (IV), 15% rye in starter feed and 30% rye in grower and finisher feed. During the 42 d rearing period, the most favourable body weight gain (P ≤ 0.05) and feed conversion ratio (P ≤ 0.01) were observed in chickens fed with rations containing the highest share of hybrid rye (group IV). The rye did not affect the dressing percentage and muscularity but diversified the fatness of birds. The muscles of chickens from group IV showed higher (P ≤ 0.01) red saturation and lower (P ≤ 0.01) yellow saturation and hue compared with the muscle of birds receiving diets with the lowest rye content (group I). The results of the study show that the inclusion of hybrid rye can be recommended in broiler chicken diets at a share of 15% in starter feed and 30% in grower and finisher feed, respectively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".