333 Comparison of Carinata Meal and Canola Meal with or without Wheat Dried Distiller’s Grains with Solubles on Rumen Fermentation, Omasal Nutrient Flow, Microbial Protein Synthesis and Total Tract Digestibility.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated carinata (CRM) versus canola meal (CM) fed alone or in combination with wheat-dried distillers’ grains with solubles (WDDGS)as a protein supplement for beef cattle. The trial was designed as a Latin square with 4 rumen-cannulated heifers (386 ± 27.95 kg; mean ± SD) fed a barley-based backgrounding (BK) diet with CRM (9.2% DM); CM (10.0% DM); CRM (5.0% DM) + WDDGS (5.3 DM); or CM (5.0% DM) + WDDGS (5.3 DM) as protein sources. Rumen and omasal samples were collected every 8 h for 3 d. Fecal output was collected every 2 h for 5 days. Omasal digesta flow and nutrient digestibility were measured with the triple marker technique using chromium-EDTA, ytterbium chloride and indigestible NDF. Microbial protein synthesis was determined using nitrogen labelled ammonium sulphate. Ruminal pH, ammonia, acetate, propionate and butyrate concentrations were not affected (P > 0.05) by treatment. No treatment differences were detected for omasal nutrient flow or apparent digestion of DM, OM or NDF, as well as for true ruminal OM digestion. Apparent digestion of N tended (P = 0.09) to be greater for CRM and CM diets relative to WDDGS diets (-10.0 ± 2.73 vs. 13.9 ± 14.81 g d-1). The inclusion of WDDGS increased (P = 0.04) N truly digested in the rumen (154.5 ± 0.16 vs. 177.9 ± 0.55 g d-1), and decreased (228.0 ± 2.45 vs. 205.6 ± 20.07 g d-1) ruminal non-ammonia nitrogen (NAN) flow. No treatment differences (P > 0.05) were noted in total bacterial NAN flow or in microbial efficiency. Total tract nutrient digestibility was not (P > 0.05) affected by treatment. These results indicate that CRM, relative to CM, does not affect rumen fermentation, nutrient utilization and microbial protein synthesis with no benefit to adding WDDGS as a rumen undegradable protein source.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".