Effects of processing and fat content of coarse canola screenings on voluntary intake and total tract nutrient digestibility of beef steers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of feeding canola screenings on voluntary intake (VI) and nutrient digestibility by growing steers were determined in two experiments. Twelve steers were involved in the first experiment to study the effects of processing (grinding and pelleting) of canola screenings on VI and apparent total tract dry matter digestibility (DMD), crude protein digestibility (CPD), fatty acid digestibility (FAD), neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD), and acid detergent fiber digestibility (ADFD). In the second experiment, the effects of fat level from canola screenings on VI and total tract nutrient digestibilities were determined using 12 steers. The fat levels tested were 67, 100, 128, and 162 g kg −1 ether extract (EE). Feeding processed canola screenings (176 g kg −1 EE) reduced (P < 0.05) VI by 31% and improved (P < 0.05) DMD, CPD, and FAD by 18, 19, and 28%, respectively. Processing of canola screenings reduced (P < 0.05) ADFD by 15% with no effect on NDFD. Increasing dietary fat level from 67 to 162 g kg −1 reduced VI in a quadratic manner (P < 0.05) and improved NDFD in a linear (P < 0.05) fashion. However, DMD, CPD, and ADFD were not affected by fat level in the diet. Total tract digestibility of fatty acids decreased linearly (P < 0.05) from 822 to 640 g kg −1 with increasing dietary fat level. The results of the study indicate that dietary fat from canola screenings at levels up to 100 g kg −1 can be fed to growing steers without detrimental effects on feed intake. Key words: Canola screenings, fat, intake, nutrient utilization, steers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".