MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199585335 · doi:10.1016/j.psj.2021.101476

A comparison of formic acid or monoglycerides to formaldehyde on production efficiency, nutrient absorption, and meat yield and quality of Cobb 700 broilers

2021· article· en· W3199585335 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kristina M. Feye, Dana K. Dittoe, J. A. Jendza, Juan P. Caldas-Cueva, B.A. Mallmann, B. Booher, Guillermo Téllez‐Isaías, C.M. Owens, M.T. Kidd, Steven C. Ricke

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGeomembrane TechnologiesUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonBASF
KeywordsFormic acidAnimal scienceBarnRandomized block designFormaldehydeFeed conversion ratioChemistryFood scienceVeterinary medicineBiologyMedicineBiochemistryAgronomyBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After being banned by the European Commission in 2018, the use of formaldehyde as a feed amendment in the United States has come into question. Therefore, this study was conducted to explore alternatives to formaldehyde, such as formic acid and monoglycerides, and their effects on poultry production. In total, 1,728 Cobb 700 broilers were randomly assigned to 96-floor pens on day of hatch (18 birds/pen). Using a randomized complete block design (4 blocks), treatments were assigned to pens with blocking based on location within the barn, with the eastern half of the barn designated for digestibility and the western half designated for production (per experiment: 8 control pens and 10 pens per treatment). All diets were based on a negative control (NC), basal diet. Dietary treatments consisted of: NC, NC + 0.25% formalin (F), NC + 0.25 and 0.50% Amasil NA (AML and AMH; 61% formic acid and 20.5% Na-formate), and NC + SILO Health 104L (SILO; mixture of monoglycerides; 0.5% from 0 to 14 d, 0.4% from 14 to 28 d, and 0.2% from 28 to 42 d). Water and feed were provided ad libitum. Performance data were collected during feed changes on d 0, 14, 28, and 42, with digestibility data collected at d 14 (2 per pen) and carcass quality (6 per pen) assessed at d 46 with a randomly selected group of broilers. A one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison, where treatments were evaluated against F were conducted using JMP 14.0 (P ≤ 0.05). Main effect of treatment was significant for performance, nutrient digestibility, and carcass quality. Differences in body weight and ADG were observed from d 14 to d 28, resulting in a trending improvement in lysine digestibility on d 14 and carcass quality on d 46 of birds fed AML and AMH in comparison to those fed F (P < 0.05). Whereas birds fed SILO had reduced digestibility of methionine on d 14 and a decrease in meat quality on d 46 in comparison to those fed F (P < 0.05). Therefore, Amasil NA at 0.25 or 0.50% may be an effective alternative to formaldehyde as a feed amendment for poultry production.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207