Performance and carcass characteristics of cattle fed lipid sources in the diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of the inclusion of different lipid sources [whole cottonseed (CS) and protected fat in diets containing sugarcane, corn, citrus pulp, CS meal, and urea] on animal performance, hot carcass dressing (HCD), ribeye area (RA), fat thickness (FT), and postmortem pH of the meat of Nellore cattle during finishing. The treatments evaluated were feed with 2.50% CS (control diet, T1 treatment); feed with 11.50% CS (high CS, T2 treatment); and feed with 3.13% CS added of protected lipid (PL) (T3 treatment), all on a DM basis. The forage:concentrate ratio of the diet was 50:50. Thirty-nine intact steers with average initial body weight of 494 kg and 36 months old were confined for 63 d. The addition of lipid sources tested in this study did not affect dry matter intake, crude protein intake, neutral detergent fiber intake, final live weight, average daily weight gain, HCD, RA, FT, and meat pH. It was concluded that the addition of PLs in the diet did not affect weight gain and carcass characteristics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".