MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070225760 · doi:10.4141/cjas08053

Effect of feeding a processed barley/canola meal pellet on performance and carcass quality of feedlot steers

2008· article· en· W2070225760 on OpenAlexaffvenue
LM Williams, H. C. Block, David A. Christensen, V. J. Racz, K. Ataku, B. Wildeman, J. J. McKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaMarbled meatFeedlotAnimal scienceMealIntramuscular fatBeef cattleSoybean mealBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of feeding a processed barley/canola meal pellet on feedlot performance and carcass quality of feedlot steers. Cross-bred steers (N = 350) weighing 285 ± 22kg were assigned to 1 of 12 pens and fed either pelleted (PB) or rolled (RB) barley as the concentrate. During backgrounding, cattle were fed a diet that contained 41% PB or RB based-concentrate (DM basis), which consisted of 85% barley and 15% canola meal. During finishing the diet contained 86% concentrate (DM basis), which consisted of 94% pelleted or rolled barley and 6% canola meal. Data collection included daily pen feed intake, individual body weights, ultrasound backfat (USBF) and longissimus dorsi (USLD) area measurements. Carcass data included weight, dressing percentage, marbling and liver abscess scores. Carcass fat, lean and bone percentage, fat color, and l. dorsi intramuscular fat content and fatty acid profile were determined on eight-bone rib samples from 20 randomly selected steers from each treatment. Steers fed the PB had similar ADG during backgrounding (1.29 vs. 1.23 kg d-1; P = 0.30); however, during finishing (1.80 vs. 2.00 kg d-1; P < 0.01) and for the total trial (1.60 vs. 1.70 kg d-1; P < 0.01), daily gains were greater for cattle fed RB. As a result, cattle fed PB were on feed for 10 d longer (P = 0.01) than RB fed cattle. DMI was lower (P < 0.01) for cattle fed PB throughout the trial. Feed conversion (kg feed:kg gain) was superior for the group fed the PB during finishing (6.03 vs. 6.21; P = 0.01) and the total trial (6.27 vs. 6.64; P < 0.01). Both diets produced similar carcasses, but inter-muscular fat percentage was higher (P = 0.03) for the RB group (60.0 vs. 57.4%). Minor differences in fatty acid profile were noted with PB fed steers having higher (P < 0.01) levels of C17:0, C18:3n-3 and C20:4n-6. Results from this study indicate that PB can be used effectively in growing programs, however, further research is required to better manage feeding of PB products to avoid DMI reductions most likely due to sub-acute rumen acidosis. Key words: Cattle, processed barley, performance, carcass quality and composition

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207