Effects of sodium bentonite supplements on growth performance of feedlot steers fed direct-cut or wilted grass silage based diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forty crossbred steers (initial liveweight: 339 ± 41 kg) were assigned to four equal groups in a 98-d feeding experiment to determine the effects of sodium bentonite supplements (2% of dietary dry matter) on their growth performance. The steers were fed ad libitum a total mixed ration based on direct-cut (two groups) or wilted (two groups) grass silage. One group of steers fed the same silage received the diet without supplementation (control), while the second group received the diet with the sodium bentonite supplement. The steers were housed in pens with electronic headgates in an unheated enclosed feedlot. Feed intake was recorded throughout the experiment and weighing conducted every 2 wk. Apparent digestibilities of dietary components were determined with four steers in a parallel 4 × 4 Latin square experiment. Feed intake, average daily gain (ADG) and the efficiency of feed utilization were higher (P < 0.05) in steers fed wilted than in those fed the poorly fermented direct-cut grass silage. Bentonite increased (P = 0.04) ADG in steers fed the direct-cut grass silage, but in those fed the wilted grass silage ADG was virtually the same for both the control or the bentonite-supplemented steers. Except for energy, digestibility of nutrients was superior (P ≤ 0.05) in the wilted than in the direct-cut grass silage, but there were no effects (P > 0.05) of bentonite. It was concluded that it may be useful to supplement poorly fermented direct-cut silage diets with sodium bentonite, but not those based on wilted grass silage. Key words: Feedlot steers, sodium bentonite, grass silage, growth performance
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".