The Performance of Steers Fed on Sugarcane in natura or Ensiled with Concentrate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of crossbred Holstein × Zebu steers fed on the diets containing sugarcane in natura or ensiled with two levels of concentrate (30% and 70%). A total of 32 males of 394 kg of body weight were used in a completely randomized experimental design with four treatments and seven repetitions. The animals reported a high dry matter intake (DMI) (P < 0.05) when fed on the high concentrate levels. The increase in concentrate levels resulted in an approximately 25% to 60% higher DMI as compared to the lowest level offered by silage-based diets and sugarcane in natura. The highest apparent digestibility coefficients of dry matter were observed in the diets based on sugarcane in natura (P < 0.05). The sugarcane based diets also affected (P > 0.05) the digestibility of organic matter, neutral detergent fiber, crude protein, ether extract, and non-fiber carbohydrates. There were no differences (P > 0.05) between the diets for average daily weight gain, carcass dressing, carcass gain, and feed conversion. The diets based on sugarcane in nature or ensiled with 30% and 70% concentrates do not influence the performance of crossbred Holstein × Zebu cattle.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".