Effects of supplementing crude protein to feedlot bison heifers using canola meal or wheat-based distillers’ grains with solubles on feed intake, performance and carcass traits
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study evaluated how varying crude protein levels in rations that incorporated canola meal or wheat-based dried distillers’ grains with solubles as alternative protein sources affected growth performance, carcass traits, and liver mineral status in feedlot bison heifers. Ninety-six crossbred bison heifers (initial body weight; 215.5 ± 22.2 kg) were stratified by weight and randomly assigned to one of three dietary treatments: (i) a conventional control diet (CON), (ii) CON with canola meal (CM), or (iii) CON with wheat-based dried distillers’ grains with solubles (WDDGS). Diets were fed over a 302-d period, consisting of a 122-d backgrounding phase and a 180-d finishing phase. During the backgrounding phase, CM and WDDGS diets were formulated to 14.0% crude protein (CP) compared with 10.0% in the CON diet. In the finishing phase, CM and WDDGS diets were formulated to 14.0% CP compared to 12.5% in the CON diet. The dry matter intake (DMI) was lower (P = 0.04) in heifers fed CM and WDDGS (5.9 kg/d) compared to CON (6.2 kg/d) during backgrounding. However, average daily gain and gain-to-feed ratio did not differ among treatments in any phase (backgrounding, finishing, or overall; P ≥ 0.27). Final body weight, hot carcass weight, dressing percentage, ribeye area, backfat thickness, marbling occurrence, and liver abscess incidence were not affected by dietary treatment (P ≥ 0.20). Hepatic copper (P = 0.02) and zinc (P = 0.03) concentrations were greater in heifers fed by-product diets compared to CON. A pronounced seasonal pattern in DMI was observed with a peak occurring in summer and a nadir in the winter. These results indicate that bison heifers can achieve similar growth performance and carcass characteristics when fed diets formulated to 10.0% CP during backgrounding and 12.5% CP during finishing, and that increasing dietary CP to 14.0% through the inclusion of CM or WDDGS did not enhance productivity. These results indicate that CM or WDDGS can be fed as protein sources without compromising the performance of bison heifers. Bison producers are always looking for cost-effective feed options that maintain animal performance and meat quality. This study tested the feeding of diets formulated to 14% CP in both the backgrounding and finishing periods to bison heifers relative to those fed unsupplemented control diets. Ninety-six bison heifers were fed one of three diets for approximately 10 mo: a standard control diet (10% CP during backgrounding and 12.5% CP during finishing), or diets formulated to 14% CP using canola meal or wheat dried distillers’ grains with solubles as supplemental protein sources. The results showed that adding these protein sources did not improve the animals’ growth rate, feed efficiency, or carcass quality compared to the standard diet. All heifers, regardless of their diet, reached a similar market weight and produced carcasses with equivalent meat yields and quality grades. As expected, feed intake dropped for all animals during the cold winter months, a natural adaptation in bison known as the “winter slump.” A key finding was that bison heifers performed just as well on a diet containing 10.2% protein as they did on a higher-protein (13.5%) diet in backgrounding and 12.4% protein compared with 14.5% in the finishing phase. This suggests that formulating diets to 14% CP during backgrounding and or finishing is not necessary and that protein levels of 10% and 12.5% respectively, during backgrounding and finishing met the requirements of the feedlot heifers used in this study. While there was no performance or economic benefit from feeding supplemental protein, there was no negative effect of either canola meal or WDDGS suggesting that they could be used as protein supplements if the feeding program so dictated.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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) | 0,001 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».