Performance of steers supplemented with copper before and during receiving at the feedlot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of supplemental Cu in the diets of beef steers grazing winter-annual pasture and(or) during receiving at a feedlot were examined. On 19 February, 84 steers (average BW = 216 ± 1.5 kg) were weighed and randomly assigned to 12 bermudagrass pastures (0.81 ha each) overseeded with wheat, rye, and annual ryegrass (seven steers/pasture). All steers were fed 0.91 kg daily of a corn-based supplement containing a basal level of Cu (control; 21 mg of Cu d–1) while grazing winter-annual pasture until 16 April. On 16 April, the steers were weighed, bled via jugular venipuncture, and one-half of the steers were supplemented with an additional 1.5 g of Cu proteinate (CuPRO; 150 mg Cu d–1), during the last 29 d of grazing before shipping to a feedlot. On 17 May, the steers were shipped to a research feedlot (14 h transit, 1.016 km). After arrival on 18 May, one-half of the groups of cattle that received each treatment during grazing received 150 mg of Cu from CuPRO daily (2 × 2 factorial) for 42 d. The supplementation of steers grazing pasture with additional Cu from CuPRO during the last 29 d of grazing tended to increase (P = 0.10) ADG and BW on day 29. The BW advantage expressed by CuPRO supplemented steers was not as apparent (P = 0.18 ) upon arrival at the feedlot, but at the conclusion of the receiving period, steers fed CuPRO on pasture were 6.3 kg heavier (P = 0.04). No benefit was noted (P > 0.14) when CuPRO was fed during receiving at the feedlot. During the grazing phase, additional Cu from CuPRO seemed beneficial compared to basal Cu levels. Key words: Beef steers, copper, winter annual, serum
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".