Use of barley or corn silage when fed with barley, corn, or a blend of barley and corn on growth performance, nutrient utilization, and carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of the source of silage, cereal grain, and their interaction on growth performance, digestibility, and carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle. Using a completely randomized design within an 89-d finishing study, 288 steers were randomly assigned to 1 of 24 pens (12 steers/pen) with average steer body weight (BW) within a pen of 464 kg ± 1.7 kg (mean ± SD). Diets were arranged in a 2 × 3 factorial with corn silage (CS) or barley silage (BS) included at 8% (dry matter [DM] basis). Within each silage source, diets contained dry-rolled barley grain (BG; 86% of DM), dry-rolled corn grain (CG; 85% of DM), or an equal blend of BG and CG (BCG; 85% of DM). Total tract digestibility of nutrients was estimated from fecal samples using near-infrared spectroscopy. Data were analyzed with pen as the experimental unit using the Mixed Model of SAS with the fixed effects of silage, grain, and the two-way interaction. Carcass and fecal kernel data were analyzed using GLIMMIX utilizing the same model. There were no interactions detected between silage and grain source. Feeding CG increased (P < 0.01) DM intake by 0.8 and 0.6 kg/d relative to BG and BCG, respectively. Gain-to-feed ratio was greater (P = 0.04) for BG (0.172 kg/kg) than CG (0.162 kg/kg) but did not differ from BCG (0.165 kg/kg). Furthermore, average daily gain (2.07 kg/d) and final body weight did not differ among treatments (P ≥ 0.25). Hot carcass weight (HCW) was 6.2 kg greater (372.2 vs. 366.0 kg; P < 0.01) and dressing percentage was 0.57 percentage units greater (59.53 vs. 58.96 %; P = 0.04) for steers fed CS than BS, respectively. There was no effect of dietary treatment on the severity of liver abscesses (P ≥ 0.20) with 72.0% of carcasses having clear livers, 24.4% with minor liver abscesses, and 3.6% with severe liver abscesses. Digestibility of DM, organic matter, crude protein, neutral detergent fiber, and starch were greater for BG (P < 0.01) than CG or BCG. As expected, grain source affected the appearance of grain kernels in the feces (P ≤ 0.04). Feeding CS silage increased the appearance of fractured corn kernels (P = 0.04), while feeding BS increased fiber appearance in the feces (P = 0.02). Current results indicate that when dry rolled, feeding BG resulted in improved performance and digestibility compared with CG and BCG. Even at low inclusion levels (8% of DM), CS resulted in improved carcass characteristics relative to BS.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle