The feeding value of grain screenings for ruminants: Chemical composition and nutrient utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to determine the chemical and nutrient utilization characteristics of grain screening pellets (GSP) for ruminants. One ruminally fistulated cow was used to determine ruminal nutrient degradability characteristics of GSP relative to barley grain. Twenty-one growing lambs were used to determine voluntary intake and total tract nutrient digestibility coefficients for GSP relative to regular and thin barley. Seven diets were formulated with different levels of GSP, and thin or regular barley at ratios of 100:0; 75:25; 50:50; 25:75. On a dry matter (DM) basis, GSP contained 337 ± 17.4 g kg−1 neutral detergent fiber (NDF), 209 ± 21.1 g kg−1 acid detergent fiber (ADF), 151 ± 11.1 g kg−1 crude protein (CP), and 262 ± 61.5 g kg−1 starch. Ruminal degradability of DM and NDF of GSP was lower (P < 0.05) while that for CP was higher (P < 0.05) than barley grain. Effective ruminal degradability of starch for GSP and barley exceeded 900 g kg−1. Results of the sheep trial showed that as the level of GSP increased, voluntary intake increased (P < 0.05) and total tract digestibility coefficients of DM, NDF, and gross energy (GE) decreased (P < 0.05). The digestibility coefficients of DM, NDF, and GE for GSP were 666 g kg−1, 294 g kg−1, and 698 J kJ−1, respectively. The digestible energy (DE) content of GSP (13.8 MJ kg−1) was similar to that of thin barley and 11% lower (P < 0.5) than that of regular barley. It was concluded that while GSP exhibited reduced ruminal and total tract nutrient utilization relative to regular barley, this feed product is a good source of energy and protein for growing ruminants. Key words: Grain screening pellets, barley, thin barley, nutrient utilization
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) | 0.000 | 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".