MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485834744 · doi:10.2527/2003.8192145x

Effects of moisture, roller setting, and saponin-based surfactant on barley processing, ruminal degradation of barley, and growth performance by feedlot steers1

2003· article· en· W1485834744 on OpenAlexaff
Y. Wang, D. Greer, Tim A. McAllister

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemperingHordeum vulgareAnimal scienceFeedlotAgronomyMathematicsMaterials scienceChemistryBiologyMetallurgyPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments were conducted to study the effects of six processing techniques for barley grain in a 3 x 2 factorial arrangement of grain conditions and roller settings on ruminal degradation of the grain (Exp. 1) and on growth performance by 138 feedlot steers (n = 23 per treatment; Exp. 2). Dry barley (11% moisture, D barley), barley tempered to 20% moisture (M barley), and barley tempered with 60 mL/t of surfactant-based tempering agent (GrainPrep, Agrichem, Inc., Anoka, MN; MS barley), were each rolled at two roller settings selected from preliminary tests. The settings selected for the study were RD, the roller position that had yielded optimally processed D barley, and RMS, the setting that had yielded optimally processed MS barley. Setting RMS was tighter than RD. Barley rolled at the RMS setting was more extensively processed (i.e., had a lower [P < 0.001] processing index, PI), had lighter (P < 0.001) volume weight, thinner (P < 0.001) kernels, and fewer (P < 0.001) whole kernels compared with setting RD. Tempering did not affect (P > 0.05) PI, percentage of whole kernels, or kernel thickness at either roller setting. The processing characteristics of tempered barley were unaffected (P > 0.05) by surfactant. The extent of in situ DM disappearance (ISDMD) was higher (P < 0.01) in grain rolled at setting RMS compared with RD. At both roller settings, tempering reduced (P < 0.05) ISDMD between 4 and 24 h of ruminal incubation. Steers fed RMS-rolled barley had lower (P < 0.001) DMI, slightly lower (P = 0.084) ADG, but increased (P < 0.05) gain:feed (G:F) compared with steers fed RD-rolled barley. Tempering did not affect (P > 0.05) ADG, DMI, or G:F during backgrounding, but improved (P < 0.01) these variables during finishing. Surfactant improved (P < 0.05) G:F but not DMI or ADG. The improvement in G:F was most pronounced when setting RMS was used. The optimal PI values calculated from performance data were numerically greater for the backgrounding diet than for the finishing diet. Steers fed M or MS barley had heavier (P < 0.01) hot carcasses and thicker (P < 0.05) fat cover but lower (P < 0.05) dressing percentages than steers fed D. When the feed barley was rolled at setting RMS, steers fed MS barley produced heavier (P < 0.05) carcasses than those fed M. Tempering with or without surfactant increased performance by feedlot steers compared with not tempering. Diet composition and degree of barley processing mediated this effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations49
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207