Frequency of concentrate supplementation for cattle fed barley straw. 1. Effect on voluntary intake, ruminal straw disappearance, apparent digestibility and heat production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five ruminally cannulated crossbred steers (474 ± 30 kg) were fed diets containing 70% barley straw and 30% concentrate in an unbalanced 5 × 5 Latin square design experiment to investigate the effects of frequency of feeding barley grain-based concentrates (daily, alternate days or every third day) with different dietary protein (7.9 and 11.5%) on voluntary intake of straw, ruminal disappearance of straw, apparent digestibility, and heat production. Neither frequency of feeding nor dietary protein concentration influenced voluntary intake of straw, nor did cattle eat differing amounts of straw on days when concentrate was fed in comparison with days when concentrate was not fed. Protein supplementation increased (P < 0.01) 24-h ruminal straw disappearance, but did not affect disappearances at other times. Concentrate feeding frequency had no influence on rate of ruminal disappearance of straw. Apparent digestibilities of dry matter, gross energy, acid detergent fibre (ADF) and crude protein were 5, 6, 8 and 33% higher (P < 0.05), respectively, in diets containing the high-protein concentrate, but were not affected by frequency of concentrate feeding. Heat production (kJ kg-0.75) tended to be reduced (P = 0.06) by 4% in steers fed concentrate on alternate days in comparison with steers fed concentrate daily. Dietary protein concentration had no influence on heat production even though digestible energy intake was 10% higher when the high protein concentrate diet was fed. It was concluded that concentrate can be fed every second day without any negative impact on intake and digestibility, with a possible benefit of a reduction in energy lost as heat. More research, however, is required to study the feasibility of feeding concentrate every third day. Key words: Cattle, straw, protein, feeding frequency, digestion, heat production
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".