Does pellet size affect the ability of beef heifers to consume a pelleted supplement in a simulated grazing model?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to evaluate pellet consumption and refusals as affected by pellet size. Six ruminally cannulated heifers were used in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square. Heifers were individually housed and fed a diet of grass hay (57.5%), mineral and vitamin supplement (8.0%), and canola meal (11.9%) in a feed bunk, and their respective wheat- and wheat-middling-based treatment pellet (22.7%) on artificial turf. The artificial turf had a mean staple length of 5 cm and a blade density of 45 blades cm−2. The pellets were small (SM; 4 mm diameter), medium (MED; 11 mm diameter), or large (LG; 50 mm diameter) in size. Heifers fed LG had greater pellet intake than SM (2.24 vs. 2.06 kg; P = 0.035), with MED being intermediate (2.12 kg). Heifers fed LG tended to have less pellet waste than SM (P = 0.074). Heifers fed MED pellets had greater concentration of ruminal short-chain fatty acids than SM and LG (91.3 vs. 84.7 and 89.0 mmol L−1; P = 0.009). The results indicate that feeding a LG pellet may increase intake and reduce waste compared with SM, and that pellet size may also affect ruminal fermentation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".