Effects of type of canola protein supplement on ruminal fermentation and nutrient flow to the duodenum in beef heifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestion, and flows to the duodenum in growing cattle fed differently produced canola protein supplements were studied in a 4 x 4 Latin square design using Speckle Park heifers (initial BW = 451 +/- 26 kg). Canola protein supplement treatments consisted of the following: 1) 8.78% regular canola meal (RCM); 2) 9.25% RCM plus 1.80% canola oil (RCMO); 3) 11.1% canola presscake from biodiesel oil extraction (CPC); and 4) 8.14% high ruminally undegradable protein (RUP) canola meal (RUCM) plus 1.32% canola oil (RUCMO). Experimental diets also contained 39.9, 40.2, 39.9, and 39.9% barley grain; 31.7, 31.4, 31.2, and 31.4% barley silage; and 17.5, 15.2, 15.6, and 16.5% oat hulls for the RCM, RCMO, CPC, and RUCMO diets, respectively. Feeding the CPC, RCMO, and RUCMO diets decreased (P < or = 0.05) ruminal NH(3)-N concentration compared with feeding the RCM diet. Compared with the RCM diet, adding canola oil in the RCMO diet or residual oil in the CPC diet resulted in greater ruminal concentrations of propionate (P < or = 0.09). Additionally, feeding the RCMO diet also resulted in greater ruminal concentrations of acetate (P = 0.07), valerate (P = 0.06), and total VFA (P = 0.07) compared with the RCM diet. Also, compared with the RCM diet, heifers on the RUCMO diet had decreased acetate (P = 0.02) concentrations. The changes in ruminal concentrations of acetate and propionate resulted in reduced acetate:propionate ratios in the RCMO (P = 0.08), CPC (P = 0.02), and RUCMO (P < 0.01) diets. Ruminal digestion and flows of nutrients to the duodenum were not affected by dietary treatment. However, adding canola oil to the RCMO and RUCMO dietary treatments decreased the digestibility of ADF (P < or = 0.08) and NDF (P < or = 0.08) in the total tract compared with the RCM diet. Total tract digestibility of OM was also decreased (P = 0.02) in heifers fed the RUCMO compared with the RCM diet. Notwithstanding the different processing methods employed in making RCM, CPC, or RUCM, there were no differences among the diets for ruminally degraded protein, ruminal microbial protein synthesis, and the flow of N fractions to the duodenum.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".