MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993076080 · doi:10.1093/jas/skz258.586

PSI-4 Effect of rumen protected capsaicin on dry matter intake, average daily gain, and carcass characteristics in finishing beef cattle

2019· article· en· W2993076080 on OpenAlexaffabout
John C Eidsvik, J. J. McKinnon, Diego Moya Fernandez, Alexandra Blanchard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarbled meatFeedlotDry matterAnimal scienceSilageRumenCanolaBeef cattleMealBiologyChemistryAgronomyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective was to evaluate growth performance and carcass characteristics for feedlot cattle fed two sources of rumen protected capsaicin at two dose rates. A total of 450 steers, stratified by BW, were assigned into 30 pens. Pens were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 5 treatments containing (DM basis) of 86.2% barley grain, 6.0% barley silage, 6.2% canola meal, and 1.6% vitamin and mineral supplement. Treatments contained no additive (CON) or included a low or high dose of Nexulin (100 mg/d for NEXLO and 330 mg/d for NEXHI) or CapsXL (77 mg/d CAPLO or 250 mg/d for CAPHI). Steers averaged 507 kg BW at the start of the study and 686 kg at the end of the study (69 days on feed) with no differences among treatments (P > 0.28). Dry matter intake, ADG, gain:feed, dressing percentage, backfat thickness, and rib-eye area were not affected by treatment (P > 0.33). Steers fed CAPLO and NEXLO tended (P = 0.07) to have lesser marbling scores than CON, CAPHI and NEXHI. The proportion of steers in Canadian yield grades 1 and 2 did not differ among treatments, while those in yield grade 3 were greater (P = 0.03) in NEXLO (29%) than the CON (10.0%) and NEXHI (12.2%) treatments, with those fed CAPLO (20%) and CAPHI (19%) being intermediate but not different. Treatment did not affect the proportion of steers in quality grades B4, A, or prime, but tended to increase the proportion of steers grading AAA (P = 0.08) and decrease the proportion grading AA (P = 0.06). Overall, the data from this experiment suggest the potential for capsaicin to affect carcass yield grade, marbling score and quality grades without affecting DMI, ADG, or dressing percentage.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207