Productive performance of lambs fed with high-moisture triticale grain ensiled with different additives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the productive performance, nutrient intake, and ingestive behavior of lambs fed high-moisture triticale grain (HMTG) ensiled with different additives. Twenty-four intact male lambs with an initial body weight (BW) of 20.05 ± 2.88 kg were assigned to one of four dietary treatments: silage of HMTG, without additive; silage of HMTG ensiled with enzyme–bacterial additive; silage of HMTG ensiled with 0.5% urea; and silage of HMTG ensiled with 1.5% sodium benzoate. No difference (P > 0.05) was seen in the performance (with an average daily weight gain of 210 g d −1 ), nutrient intake, or ingestive behavior of the lambs. There was a significant difference in the intake of ether extract according to the additive used in the silage. The highest intake (in relation to metabolic BW) was found for HMTG ensiled with enzyme–bacterial additive: 1.49 g kg −1 BW 0.75 . The silage of HMTG can be used as a single source of concentrate, aiming at moderate weight gains for feedlot lambs, thus providing an alternative for the conservation of nutritional quality of ensiling without causing changes in the performance of the animals.
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) | 0.001 | 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".