MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140124068 · doi:10.4141/cjas08113

Effect of graded levels of wheat-based dried distillers’ grains with solubles on rumen fermentation in finishing cattle

2009· article· en· W2140124068 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Renee Maxine Beliveau, J. J. McKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of ChemistryMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsRumenDistillers grainsPropionateChemistryFermentationLatin squareStarchFood scienceAnimal scienceBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 4 × 4 Latin square experiment using ruminally cannulated heifers (388 ± 25 kg, mean ± SD) was conducted to evaluate the effects of graded levels (0, 7, 14, 21% DM basis) of wheat-based dried distillers’ grains with solubles (DDGS) on rumen fermentation characteristics and eating behaviour of cattle fed barley-based diets. Mean rumen pH at cutoff values of pH 5.8 or less (P = 0.02) and pH 5.5 or less (P < 0.01) and pH area between 5.2 and 5.5 (P = 0.02) decreased cubically as DDGS content increased with maximum pH at 2.6% and minimum pH at 14.7% DDGS inclusion levels. A cubic effect of DDGS inclusion level (P = 0.03) was noted for time below pH 5.2 where local minima and maxima were found at 2.9 and 15.0% DDGS. Ammonia N (P < 0.01) and the acetate:propionate ratio (P = 0.01) increased, while propionate decreased (P < 0.01) linearly as DDGS content increased. It was concluded that despite the high fibre, low starch nature of wheat-based DDGS, substitution for barley did not improve the acidic rumen fermentation conditions associated with feeding barley-based finishing diets. Key words: Wheat dried distillers’ grains with solubles, rumen fermentation, feeding behaviour, sub-acute ruminal acidosis

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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