Impact of a phytogenic feed additive on growth performance, feed intake, and carcass traits of finishing steers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstact: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a phytogenic feed additive (Digestarom [DA]; Biomin, Getzersdorf, Austria) on growth performance, feed intake, carcass traits, fatty acid composition, and liver abscesses of finishing steers. One hundred twenty Angus × Charolais crossbred steers (488 ± 26.5 kg) were used in a 110-d feeding experiment. Steers were blocked by weight and randomly assigned to 12 pens with 10 steers per pen. Each pen was allocated to one of three diets. Each diet contained 86.5% barley, 10.0% barley silage, and 3.5% vitamin and mineral supplement on a dry matter (DM) basis. The diets contained 0, 0.05, and 0.1 g DA/kg complete diet (DM basis), to achieve average daily DA intakes of 0 (control), 0.5 (LowDA), and 1.0 g (HighDA) per steer. Diets were prepared once daily and provided ad libitum. Two pens per treatment were equipped to record individual feed intake behavior. Steers were weighed every 28 d and carcass traits and liver scores were recorded at slaughter. Dry matter intake (average: 9.34 kg/d) did not differ (P > 0.05) among diets. Average daily gain tended to increase linearly as DA increased (control: 1.82; LowDA: 1.87; and HighDA: 1.95 kg/d; P < 0.09), but gain:feed ratio was not affected. Supplementation of DA affected longissimus muscle area quadratically (P = 0.05) with the largest area observed for LowDA. However, dressing percentage decreased linearly in response to increasing level of DA (P < 0.01). Total abscessed livers were not affected, whereas proportion of severe liver abscesses was numerically lower with DA (30.8% and 42.5% for LowDA and HighDA) compared to the control (50%).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".