Effect of Fresh Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes) on Intake And Digestibility in Cattle Fed Rice Straw and Molasses-Urea Cake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four 12 month old crossbred Sindhi heifers (Red Sindhi × local Yellow cattle) with an average body weight (BW) of 79 (SD=9) kg were used to investigate the effect of fresh water hyacinth (WH) on intake and in vivo digestibility. The basal diet consisted of a molasses-urea cake (MUC) and rice straw. The animals were randomly allocated to four treatments in a 4×4 Latin square. The treatments were WH at 0 (WH0), 15 (WH15), 30 (WH30), and 45% (WH45) of an expected total dietary intake of 3% of body weight (BW). Molasses-urea cake was supplemented at a level of 3 g fresh matter per kg BW per day. When measuring intake, rice straw levels were adjusted daily to ensure an excess level of 10%. In the digestibility experiment, amount of rice straw was fed to ensure no refusals. Voluntary intake and digestibility were measured consecutively during the experimental periods which each lasted 28 days. Intake of neutral detergent fibre was lowest at the highest WH level but this was reversed for crude protein (CP). Total dry matter intake in percent of BW was 3.2, 2.9, 2.6 and 2.6 for WH0, WH15, WH30 and WH15, respectively and did not differ among treatments. Increasing level of WH had only an effect on CP digestibility which increased by 14 (WH15), 26 (WH30) and 24% (WH45) in comparison with treatment WH0. It is concluded that increasing level of WH in cattle diets considerably improved CP intake and digestibility but from problems experienced with WH45 in terms of bloat and reduced rice straw intake, an inclusion level not exceeding 30% is recommended for growing cattle. Cattle would also require long periods of adaptation to fresh WH to achieve reasonable intakes. Keywords: Cattle, digestibility, intake, rice straw, water hyacinth
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 | 0.001 | 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".