Comparison of alternative beef production systems based on forage finishing or grain-forage diets with or without growth promotants: 1. Feedlot performance, carcass quality, and production costs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forty Angus-cross steers were used to evaluate 5 beef cattle management regimens for their effect on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and cost of production. A 98-d growing phase was incorporated using grass silage with or without growth promotants (trenbolone acetate + estradiol implants, and monensin in the feed) or soybean meal. Dietary treatments in the finishing phase were developed, with or without addition of the same growth promotants, based on exclusive feeding of forages with minimal supplementation or the feeding of barley-based diets. Overall, ADG for animals treated with growth promotants or fed supplemented diets (soybean meal and barley) was increased (P < 0.01) by 25 and 21%, respectively, compared with steers reared on grass silage alone and not treated with growth promotants. Except for HCW (P < 0.01), the use of growth promotants did not affect carcass measurements. Increasing the proportion of barley in the diet of steers finished on forage produced a heavier HCW (P < 0.01) and a greater (P < 0.01) quality grade. Because of their lower HCW and quality grade, cattle targeted to a forage-fed, nonimplanted beef market would need to garner a 16% premium to be economically competitive with cattle finished conventionally.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".