Effects of monensin and increasing dose levels of a mixture of essential oil compounds on intake, digestion and growth performance of beef cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted with beef cattle to evaluate the effects of dietary addition of monensin (Rumensin® premix, MO) and different doses of a mixture of essential oils (Vertan®; EO) on feed intake, growth performance and feed efficiency (exp. 1), nutrient digestibility and N retention (exp. 2). In exp. 1, 20 steers and 20 heifers (Angus × Hereford, initial BW = 369 ± 10 kg) used in a random block design were fed a total mixed ration (TMR) without supplementation (control, CO), or supplemented with MO (33 mg kg DM-1) or EO (2 and 4 g d-1). In exp. 2, five steers (Angus × Hereford, initial BW = 244 ± 4 kg) used in a 5 × 5 Latin square design were fed CO, MO (33 mg kg DM-1), or EO (2, 3, and 4 g d-1). In exp. 1, DM intake was not affected (P > 0.05) by the addition of EO, but it was 10% lower (P 0.05) between cattle fed CO and those fed MO or EO. Feed efficiency (ADG to DM intake ratio) was not affected ...
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".