PSXIII-18 The optimum dietary forage inclusion level for finishing cattle fed diets containing corn dried distillers grains.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to determine the effects of feeding 0, 4, 8 or 12% barley silage (DM basis) in place of barley grain in finishing cattle diets containing 15% corn dried distillers grains (DDGS) on chewing behavior, and gastrointestinal digestive, absorptive and barrier functions. Crossbred heifers (n = 8; 653 ± 44.2 kg; mean BW ± SD) were used in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin square design with 28 d periods. The dietary treatments were 0, 4, 8 or 12% barley silage (DM basis); the remainder consisted of 80, 76, 72 or 68% barley grain, respectively, and 15% corn DDGS and 5% mineral/vitamin supplement. Feed intake was measured daily. A digital video recording system was used to monitor (d 10 to 16) chewing behavior. Ruminal pH was measured using indwelling loggers (d 16 to 22), and ruminal fluid was collected on d 17 to determine VFA concentration. To assess total tract barrier function, Cr-EDTA solution was dosed into the rumen on d 20 and urine was collected over the next 48 h and analyzed for Cr. On d 28, the temporarily isolated and washed reticulo-rumen technique was used to determine VFA absorption. All data were analyzed using PROC MIXED in SAS. Although there was no diet effect (P ≥ 0.05; Table 1) on ruminal total VFA and lactate concentrations, the duration pH < 5.5 and acidosis index were greater (quadratic; P ≤ 0.04), and total ruminating time was shorter (quadratic; P = 0.04) for cattle fed the 0% compared to the 4, 8 and 12% silage diets. However, there was no diet effect (P ≥ 0.17) on VFA absorption and barrier function. In summary, feeding at least 4% barley silage in finishing diets containing 15% corn DDGS increased ruminating time, which possibly reduced the severity of ruminal acidosis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".