MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743424179 · doi:10.2527/asasann.2017.255

255 Evaluation of canola meal versus soybean meal as a protein supplement on performance and carcass characteristics of growing and finishing beef cattle

2017· article· en· W2743424179 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLivestock Farming and Management
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaMealSoybean mealBeef cattleAnimal scienceFood scienceBiologyBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two trials were conducted to evaluate the performance and carcass characteristics of backgrounding and finishing cattle fed canola meal (CM) versus soybean meal (SBM) as a protein supplement with or without wheat dried distillers' grains with solubles (WDDGS). Trial 1 was a 95-d backgrounding program in which 398 steer calves (288 ± 0.27 kg; mean ± SE) were assigned to one of 12 pens and fed one of four barley silage, barley grain-based diets formulated to 13.5% CP and 1.52 and 0.92 Mcal kg-1 NEm and NEg, respectively. The dietary treatments included CM (8.7% DM), SBM (7.0% DM), CM+WDDGS (4.6 & 4.8% DM), and SBM+WDDGS, (4.2 & 4.4% DM). Trial 2 utilized 300 head (306 ± 0.94 kg) assigned to 25 pens for a 61-d backgrounding and 147-d finishing program. Backgrounding diets were identical to Trial 1 with the addition of a fifth treatment (WDDGS, 9.5% DM). The basal finishing diet was barley grain-based and formulated to 13% CP and 1.95 and 1.30 Mcal kg-1 NEm and NEg, respectively. The five dietary treatments included CM (5.7% DM), SBM (4.3% DM), CM+WDDGS (3.0% & 3.1% DM), SBM+WDDGS (2.4% & 2.6% DM), and WDDGS (6.7% DM). Performance results for each trial were analyzed as a completely randomized design using the Mixed model procedure with pen as the experimental unit. Quality and yield grades were analyzed using GLIMMIX with a binomial error structure and logit data transformation. In trial 1, there were no differences between treatments for final BW (420.7 ± 1.8 kg; P = 0.30) or gain-to-feed (G:F) (0.16 ± 0.003; P = 0.60); however, ADG was greatest (P < 0.05) for cattle fed SBM relative to cattle fed SBM+WDDGS (1.45 ± 0.04 kg vs. 1.32 ± 0.03 kg). In trial 2, no treatment differences (P > 0.22) were detected for ADG (1.65 ± 0.01 kg), DMI (9.77 ± 0.07 kg), or G:F (0.17 ± 0.001). Cattle fed SBM+WDDGS had the least subcutaneous fat depth relative to cattle fed CM+WDDGS (1.17 ± 0.06 cm vs. 1.46 ± 0.05 cm; P = 0.02) and the poorest marbling score relative to cattle fed WDDGS (398.75 ± 15.19 vs. 440.10 ± 8.20; P = 0.05). There was a tendency (P = 0.09) for greater proportion of AAA carcasses with the WDDGS treatment (66.1 ± 6.2%) while SBM+WDDGS had the least (41.4 ± 6.5%). These results indicate that CM is equal to SBM as a protein supplement for backgrounding and finishing cattle and that provision of WDDGS as a source of rumen undegradable protein did not benefit performance. The combination of SBM+WDDGS negatively influenced energy partitioning to carcass fat deposition.

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.240 · 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