Comparison of canola and mustard presscake from biodiesel production as protein sources for growing cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies were conducted to examine in situ rumen degradation kinetics of biodiesel presscake from canola (CPC) (Brassica napa) and mustard (MPC) (Brassica hirta) relative to regular canola meal (CM) and performance of cattle fed these meals as protein supplements in backgrounding diets. In the in situ trial CPC and MPC had similar (P > 0.05) rates of DM, CP, fibre and crude fat disappearance. However, CPC and MPC exhibited greater (P < 0.05) soluble DM, CP, ADF and NDF fractions and, as a result, the effective degradability of each of these fractions was greater (P < 0.05) than that of canola meal. No differences (P > 0.05) in effective degradability of crude fat were observed. The feedlot trial involved 391 steers (323 ± 24 kg) that were fed one of three experimental diets: a control diet consisting of barley silage (213 g kg-1) oat hulls (306 g kg-1), chopped straw (63 g kg-1), rolled barley (255 g kg-1) and CM (101 g kg-1), or a diet containing either CPC or MPC in place of CM as the protein supplement. Backgrounding performance was unaffected by treatment as no differences in DMI (P = 0.127), ADG (P = 0.679) or feed:gain (P = 0.792) were observed. Composition of gain estimated by ultrasound measurement of longissimus dorsi area and subcutaneous fat depth was unaffected by dietary treatment. It is concluded that biodiesel presscake from both canola and mustard seed provides a superior source of rumen degradable nutrients relative to CM and can be used as protein supplements for growing cattle without any adverse affects on performance at levels up to 10% of the diet DM.Key words: Beef cattle, backgrounding, biodiesel presscake, canola, mustard
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".