Comparative Meat Production Performance Evaluation of Buffalo with Cattle at Different Ages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An inquisitive on-station feeding trial was carried out to identify the dexterous species and age for beef production with same plane of nutrition. A 2×3 (2 species × 3 ages) factorial experiment was settled for a period of 105 days with eighteen native buffalo and 18 BCB-1 (BLRI Cattle Breed-1) bulls of three age groups (18 months, 24 months and 30 months) and distributed them randomly in six treatment groups having an equal number (6) of animals in each. Intake of nutrients i.e.: DM, CP of buffalo bulls was significantly (p<0.001) higher than BCB-1 bulls in all the cases. The buffalo bulls had significantly higher digestibility of DM (68.0%, p<0.001), OM (67.9%, p<0.001), CP (66.3%, p<0.05), ADF (59.8%, p<0.001) or NDF (59.6%, p<0.001) than cattle (63.0%, 62.7%, 63.6%, 52.4% & 49.6%, respectively). But, the digestibility of DM, OM, CP, ADF or NDF was not affected significantly (p>0.05) by the age of the bulls with any cases. Buffalo bulls gained body weight more rapidly (p<0.001); 1.11 & 0.88 kg/day, respectively and showed a better FCR (p>0.05; 6.72 & 6.86, respectively) than cattle with low feed cost of per kg gain (US$ 1.62 & US$ 1.69, respectively). ADG (p<0.01), FCR (p<0.05) and estimated feed cost (p<0.05) affected significantly and increased linearly by the age of bulls, where 18 months bulls of buffalo and BCB-1 performed best. In an aggregation, it revealed that, buffalo performed better than BCB-1 cattle and 18 months age of both species was more responsive for profitable meat production.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".