MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262860189 · doi:10.4141/cjas-2014-148

Effect of rumen degradable energy supplementation on forage utilization and performance of steers grazing stockpiled cool season perennial grass pastures

2015· article· en· W2262860189 on OpenAlexaffvenue
F. Añez-Osuna, G.B. Penner, Kathy Larson, P. G. Jefferson, H.A. Lardner, J. J. McKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersPennsylvania State University
KeywordsForageGrazingPerennial plantRumenPastureAgronomyStarchAnimal scienceBiologyFodderFood scienceFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Añez-Osuna, F., Penner, G. B., Larson, K., Jefferson, P. G., Lardner, H. A. and McKinnon, J. J. 2015. Effect of rumen degradable energy supplementation on forage utilization and performance of steers grazing stockpiled cool season perennial grass pastures. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 255–265. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of supplementing rumen degradable energy using blended by-product pellets that differed in starch and degradable fiber content on forage utilization and performance of steers grazing stockpiled cool-season perennial grass (CSPG) pastures. Forty-five yearling crossbred steers (334±23.5 kg) stratified by body weight (BW) were randomly assigned to one of nine pastures (five steers/pasture) of mature cool-season perennial grasses. Each pasture was randomly assigned (n=3) to one of three treatments: no supplement (CON); low-starch/high degradable-fibre (LSHF; 40.3% starch; 29.5% NDF) pellet and high-starch/low-degradable fibre (HSLF; 48.6% starch; 22.8% NDF) pellet, both fed daily at 0.6% of BW (DM basis). The grazing period lasted 70 d (from early-August to mid-October). Over the 70-d study, forage CP decreased from 9.9±0.82 to 6.9±0.59% of DM and digestible energy content decreased from 2.6±0.04 to 2.2±0.04 Mcal kg −1 of DM. Treatment did not affect forage utilization (P=0.50; 73.4±3.15%) or forage DM intake (P=0.90; 9.0±1.54 kg d −1 ). Final BW and average daily gain (ADG) were not different (P>0.05) between LSHF (435±6.4 kg and 1.4±0.10 kg d −1 ) and HSLF (439±10.4 kg and 1.5±0.14 kg d −1 ) treatments. However, supplemented steers had higher (P<0.05) final BW and ADG than the control steers (402±5.6 kg and 1.0±0.09 kg d −1 ). These results show that unsupplemented beef steers grazing stockpiled CSPG pastures were limited in both energy and protein intake and that supplementation with by-product feed pellets formulated to supply protein and energy either as starch or degradable fibre equally improved animal 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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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