Effects of feeding canola screenings on apparent digestibility, growth performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commercial coarse canola screenings (CS) were substituted for barley grain, and the resulting experimental diets (0, 20, 45, 70 and 95% CS, as-fed) were evaluated in feedlot lambs, while the 0, 45 and 95% CS diets were evaluated in a digestibility study using Romanov × Suffolk lambs. The CS comprised 60% canola (as whole, broken and immature seeds), 25% weed seeds and 15% chaff/dust. The control diet (0% CS) contained 75% barley and 20% alfalfa (as a protein/fibre source). Dietary crude protein (CP) increased with inclusion of CS and was lowest for control and 20% CS diets (13%) and highest for the 95% CS diet (14.4%). Digestibilities of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and acid detergent fibre (ADF) were reduced (P < 0.05) in the 95% diet as compared with the control diet. Nitrogen retention by lambs was three times higher in the control group than in the 95% CS group (P < 0.001). Growth and feed conversion efficiency in feedlot lambs were linearly reduced (P < 0.001) with increasing dietary CS, but so was saturation of carcass fat (P < 0.001), which may benefit human health. Reduced lamb performance with CS was likely related to its high contents of crude fat (9%, DM basis) and ash (14%, DM basis). Valuing CS at 86% of the cost of barley, incorporation of up to 45% CS in feeder lamb diets would be cost effective. Key words: Canola, by-product, screenings, lamb, growth, carcass
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".