Effects of distillers’ dried grains with solubles from corn, wheat or a 50:50 corn:wheat blend on performance, carcass characteristics and serum sulphate levels of feedlot steers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amat, S., Hendrick, S., McAllister, T. A., Block, H. C. and McKinnon, J. J. 2012. Effects of distillers’ dried grains with solubles from corn, wheat or a 50:50 corn:wheat blend on performance, carcass characteristics and serum sulphate levels of feedlot steers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 343–351. Two trials were conducted to evaluate the effects of corn (CDDGS), wheat (WDDGS) or a 50:50 corn:wheat blend (BDDGS) dried distillers’ grains with solubles (DDGS) on performance (Trials 1 and 2), carcass traits (Trial 2) and serum sulphate level (Trial 2) of steers. In Trial 1, 396 steers (281.1±19.6 kg) were fed one of three backgrounding diets. The control diet was 34.3% barley grain, 26.0% grass hay, 10.3% barley straw, 22.8% barley silage and 6.7% supplement [dry matter (DM) basis]. For the two treatments, 17% of the barley was replaced with CDDGS or WDDGS. In Trial 2, 288 steers (273.9±18.5 kg) were backgrounded and finished. Backgrounding diets were identical to Trial 1, with a third treatment where 17% of the barley grain was replaced with BDDGS. The control finishing diet was 86.8% barley grain, 7.4% barley silage and 5.8% supplement (DM basis). Treatments included replacement of 40% of the barley grain (DM basis) with CDDGS, BDDGS or WDDGS. In Trial 1, there was no effect of DDGS on dry matter intake (DMI) (P=0.49), average daily gain (ADG) (P=0.64), feed efficiency (P=0.06), ultrasound fat (USFAT) (P=0.90) or longissimus dorsi (USLD) (P=0.071) area. In Trial 2, overall, DMI of cattle fed WDDGS was higher (P=0.03) than control or CDDGS cattle, with BDDGS intermediate. In contrast, ADG was higher (P<0.01) for the CDDGS and BDDGS than either the control or WDDGS fed cattle. The CDDGS and BDDGS cattle were more efficient (P<0.01) than those fed WDDGS with the controls intermediate. Cattle fed CDDGS or WDDGS exhibited higher (P<0.01) serum sulphate levels compared with BDDGS or control cattle, reflecting differences in sulphur intake. The results indicate that CDDGS is a superior energy source to WDDGS and that both sources of DDGS can be used as a partial replacement for barley in backgrounding and finishing diets for cattle.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".