Effect of a pine enhanced biochar on growth performance, carcass quality, and feeding behavior of feedlot steers1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of enhanced biochar (EB) on growth performance, carcass quality, and feeding behavior of feedlot steers fed high-forage and high-grain diets. A total of 160 crossbred steers (initial 286 ± 26 kg body weight [BW]) were blocked by BW and randomly assigned to 16 pens (10 steers per pen), 8 of which were equipped with the GrowSafe system for monitoring feeding behavior. Treatments were EB included in the diet at 0% (control), 0.5%, 1.0%, or 2.0% (dry matter [DM] basis) with four pens per treatment. The backgrounding phase (84 d) was divided into four 21-d periods, and the finishing phase (112 d) was divided into four 28-d periods, with a 28-d transition period for dietary adaptation. Pen was the experimental unit for all parameters except for feeding behavior, where steer was considered the experimental unit. Treatment was included as a fixed effect, and period was considered a repeated measure. Total weight gain and overall average daily gain (ADG) tended to decrease (P = 0.06) with 2.0% EB. There was no effect (P ≥ 0.13) of EB on dry matter intake (DMI), gain-to-feed ratio (G:F), net energy for gain, ADG, or final BW for the backgrounding or finishing phases. There was a treatment × period effect (P < 0.05) of EB on DMI, ADG, and G:F for both backgrounding and finishing phases. Hot carcass weight, dressing %, back fat, rib-eye area, and meat yield were not affected (P ≥ 0.26) by EB. Lean meat yield was increased (P = 0.03) by 2.0% EB compared to all other treatments. Compared to the control, 2.0% EB increased (P = 0.02) the number of carcasses that achieved Canada 1 grade. More (P = 0.05) carcasses from control steers were graded as Canada 3 as compared to those fed 0.5% or 2.0% EB. Quality grade and incidences of liver abscesses were not affected (P ≥ 0.44) by EB. Enhanced biochar had no effect (P ≥ 0.11) on feeding behavior during backgrounding or finishing phases. In conclusion, EB did not result in changes in growth rate, feed efficiency, or feeding behavior in feedlot cattle, but 2.0% EB increased lean carcass yield grade.
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".