Effects of barley grain processing on the site and extent of digestion of beef feedlot finishing diets.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effects of extent of barley rolling on chewing activities, ruminal fermentation, and site and extent of digestion were evaluated for feedlot finishing cattle diets in a 4 x 4 Latin square design. Four Jersey steers (452 kg), cannulated in the rumen and duodenum, were used. Barley grain was temper-rolled to four extents: coarse, medium, medium-flat, and flat, which were expressed as processing index (PI, volume weight of barley after processing expressed as a percentage of its volume weight before processing, DM basis) and equivalent to 82, 75, 70, and 65%, respectively. Diets consisted of 9.7% barley silage, 86% temper-rolled barley, and 4.3% other ingredients (DM basis). Steers were offered ad libitum access to a total mixed ration once daily. Dry matter intake was not affected (P > 0.15) by PI of barley. Digestibility of OM in the rumen and in the total tract were numerically lower (P = 0.13) for steers fed coarsely rolled barley than for steers fed more extensively processed barley. Digestibility of starch in the total tract was linearly increased (P = 0.02) with grain processing, but NDF digestion was not affected by processing (P > 0.15). Digestibility of CP did not differ in the rumen but tended (P = 0.08) to increase in the total tract with increased processing of barley. Flow of microbial nitrogen to the duodenum was approximately one-third lower (linear effect, P = 0.06) for steers fed coarsely rolled barley than for steers fed further rolled barley. Increased grain processing tended to decrease (linear effect, P = 0.08) rumination time without affecting eating time. These results indicate that optimal degree of rolling for barley fed to feedlot cattle corresponded to a PI of 75% or lower. Coarsely rolled barley is not recommended because it resulted in the lowest digestibility and lowest microbial protein synthesis. Processing barley to attain a PI less than 75% resulted in marginal improvements in feed digestion, but rumination time decreased, which could lead to problems associated with acidosis if lower-fiber diets are used.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".