Effects of concentration and composition of wet corn gluten feed in steam-flaked corn-based finishing diets1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two finishing experiments were conducted to determine the effects of concentration (Exp. 1) and composition of wet corn gluten feed (Exp. 2) in steam-flaked corn-based diets on feedlot steer performance. In Exp. 1, 192 English x Continental crossbred steer calves (299 +/- 0.6 kg) were used in a completely randomized design with six dietary treatments (four pens per treatment). Treatments were six concentrations of wet corn gluten feed (Sweet Bran, Cargill Inc., Blair, NE; 0, 10, 20, 25, 30, and 35%) replacing steam-flaked corn (DM basis). All diets contained 10% corn silage, 5% supplement, and 3.5% tallow (DM basis). Gain efficiency and ADG were similar (P > 0.25) among treatments. Dry matter intake was lower (P < 0.10) with 0% wet corn gluten feed than with concentrations of 20, 25, and 35% WCGF. Dry matter intake did not differ among treatments containing wet corn gluten feed. In Exp. 2, 160 English x Continental crossbred steer calves (315 +/- 0.6 kg) were used in a completely randomized design with five dietary treatments (four pens/treatment). Treatments were assigned based on four ratios of steep to corn bran/germ meal mix in wet corn gluten feed plus a negative control (CON). Wet corn gluten feed was fed at 25% of the dietary DM and was made by mixing steep and corn bran/germ meal into the diet. The four concentrations of steep in wet corn gluten feed that comprised the ratios were 37.5, 41.7, 45.8, and 50% (DM basis), with the remaining proportion being the bran/germ meal mix. Bran/germ meal mix was comprised of 60% dry corn bran, 24% germ meal, and 16% fine-cracked corn (DM basis). All diets contained 10% corn silage, 5% supplement, and 3.5% tallow (DM basis). Daily gain did not differ (P = 0.18) among treatments. Gain efficiency did not differ between CON and 50% steep; however, G:F was decreased (P < 0.05) for concentrations of 37.5, 41.7, and 45.8% steep compared with CON. A linear improvement (P < 0.05) was observed for G:F as concentration of steep increased as a proportion of wet corn gluten feed. These data suggest that wet corn gluten feed can be used at concentrations up to 35% of the dietary DM without adversely affecting performance, and that steep has more energy than bran/germ meal in steam-flaked corn-based diets.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".