Licuri oil supplements for lactating cows on pasture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lima, L. S., Oliveira, R. L., Garcez Neto, A. F., Bagaldo, A. R., Abreu, C. L., Silva, T. M., Carvalho, S. T. and Bezerra, L. R. 2015. Licuri oil supplements for lactating cows on pasture. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 617–624. As licuri [Syagrus coronata (Martius) Beccari] oil can be a beneficial energy source in the diet of lactating cows managed on pasture, this study aimed to determine the most effective level of licuri oil in feed supplements. Sixteen Holstein×Zebu crossbreed lactating cows grazing on Tanzania (Panicum maximum) pasture grass were grouped into two 4×4 simultaneous Latin squares; there were four experimental periods of 21 d each, with 17 adaptation days and 4 d of data collection. The treatments were diets containing 0.0, 15.0, 30.0 or 45.0 g kg −1 of licuri oil in concentrated dry matter. The intakes of dry matter, crude protein and non-fiber carbohydrate levels were not affected by the addition of licuri oil; however, the intake of neutral detergent fiber and total digestible nutrients decreased linearly. Neutral detergent fiber digestibility was reduced linearly with increasing levels of licuri oil in the concentrate. There were no changes in blood glucose levels, but blood urea nitrogen levels varied according to the time of the day when the blood was collected. Inclusion of licuri oil at 45.0 g kg −1 in feed concentrates results in improved dry matter and ether extract digestibility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".