Effect of dried distillers' grain, soybean meal and grain or canola meal and grain-based supplements on forage intake and digestibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Van De Kerckhove, A. Y., Lardner, H. A., Yu, P., McKinnon J. J. and Walburger, K. 2011. Effect of dried distillers' grain, soybean meal and grain or canola meal and grain-based supplements on forage intake and digestibility. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 123–132. Four ruminally cannulated beef heifers (72 wk of age) were individually fed a basal ration of 75% ground barley straw and 25% ground bromegrass hay [total digestible nutrients=46.3, crude protein (CP)=7.5 (% dry matter (DM))]. Heifers were supplemented with either (1) no supplement (CONT); (2) dried distillers' grains plus solubles [70:30 wheat:corn blend; dried distillers' grains plus solubles (DDGS)]; (3) commercial range pellet (COMM); or (4) barley grain and canola meal (BAR+CM). Forage intake, apparent total tract digestibility, passage rate, rate and extent of forage degradation, rumen pH and rumen ammonia nitrogen were measured. Forage intake, passage rate, and apparent total tract digestibility of DM, neutral detergent fiber, and acid detergent fiber were unaffected (P>0.41) by treatment. Apparent total tract digestibility of CP was increased (P=0.02) with supplements as compared with CONT, but did not differ (P>0.05) among DDGS, COMM, and BAR+CM. Ruminal pH was not affected (P=0.20) by treatment, but rumen ammonia-N was increased (P<0.01) with all three supplements. Potentially degradable and undegradable forage fractions were decreased (P<0.02) and there was a tendency (P=0.06) for the rate of forage DM degradation to increase with supplementation. Supplementing forage diets with either DDGS, grain-soybean-canola- or grain-canola-based supplements did not increase the intake or digestibility of a forage-based diet. More research, however, is required to study the feasibility of feeding these supplements at greater levels with forage-based beef cattle diets.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".