MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2041993079 · doi:10.4141/a03-018

Estimation of intake and digestibility of silage by beef steers using a controlled release capsule of n-alkanes

2003· article· en· W2041993079 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
E. Charmley, D.R. Ouellet, D. M. Veira, R. Michaud, J. L. Duynisveld, H.V. Petit

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsSilageAnimal scienceAlkaneDry matterRumenChemistryBeef cattleComposition (language)FecesFood scienceBiologyBiochemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twelve beef steers were fed a grass-legume silage either ad libitum or at 70% of ad libitum feeding. Intake and digestibility were measured directly or predicted using the alkane ratio technique. The C32 and C36 alkanes were delivered via a controlled release capsule (CRC) in the rumen. Level of feeding had no effect on digestibility (P > 0.05) but dry matter (DM) intake tended to be greater for steers fed ad libitum (P = 0.08). The release of alkanes from the CRC was erratic and 20% greater than expected. This influenced the exogenous to endogenous alkane ratios. Estimates of intake were therefore derived using both the expected and actual (determined from total collection of feces and their alkane analysis) exogenous alkane release rates. Estimated intakes based on the manufacturers’ release rate were underestimated and associated with high standard errors. For cattle fed restricted silage, estimated intakes obtained with C31:C32, C33:C32 and C33:C36 alkane pairs and using actual measured release rates of exogenous markers were associated with lower standard errors and averaged 87, 102 and 103% of actual values, respectively. For ad libitum-fed cattle the corresponding values were 81, 96 and 96% of actual values. There was no significant difference between actual and estimated DM intake when the C33:C32 and C36:C32 alkane pairs were used. The precision of intake estimates using manufacturers release rates for exogenous alkanes was poor, as evidenced by significant discrepancies (P < 0.05 for four of six estimates) between observed and predicted values averaging 2.26 kg or 30% of DM intake. However, when measured exogenous alkane release rates were used, standard errors were reduced and discrepancies for estimates using C33:C32 and C33:C326 were only 0.4 kg or 6% of DM intake. Fecal recovery of C27, C29, C31 and C33 alkanes was 73.4, 92.7, 85.6 and 100%, respectively. Both C29 and C33 gave good estimates of digestibility because of high recovery. Observed and estimated values were not significantly different. It is concluded that exogenous alkane release from CRCs was not satisfactorily consistent. Reliable estimates of intake could only be made if actual release rate was known. Endogenous alkanes can be used for determination of digestibility, provided fecal recovery is known. Key words: Beef, silage, alkane, intake, digestibility

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→