Enzyme complex addition in barley or rye broiler diets with two energy levels fed from 1 to 21 days
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to evaluate diet digestibility, performance, digestive parameters, and blood parameters when an enzyme complex (EC) was used in barley- and rye-based diets with different energy levels. In the digestibility assay (exp. I), 108 seventeen-day-old Cobb male broilers were distributed in a completely randomized design in 2 × 2 × 2 + 1 factorial arrangement with two feeds (barley or rye), two EC levels (0% and 0.02%), and two energy levels [3025 and 3125 kcal apparent metabolizable energy (AME)·kg−1], plus a control treatment. In exp. II, 1080 one-day-old Cobb male broilers were distributed in a completely randomized design in 2 × 2 × 2 + 1 factorial arrangement with two feeds (barley or rye), two EC levels (0% and 0.02%), and two energy levels (2875 and 2975 kcal AME·kg−1). No interactions were observed for any variables (exp. I and II). Enzyme complex improved the apparent metabolizable coefficient of gross energy (P = 0.0432) of diets. The EC provided greater weight gain (P = 0.0003) and better feed conversion (P = 0.0025). Intestinal viscosity at 21 d was reduced (P < 0.0001) with the addition of the EC. The EC improved nutrient digestibility and performance, but the effects of energy reduction on performance could not be overcome.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".