Supplementation of Growing Beef Heifers With Starch or Highly Digestible Fiber Supplements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Producers are interested in cost-effective forage-based heifer development programs with supplemental feeding, if needed, of a single supplement (reducing the cost of mixed rations) so that it would meet their nutrient requirements. For three consecutive years, the effect of two levels of ground corn (GC) and soybean hulls pellets (SB), were evaluated on performance and grazing behavior of 90 replacement beef crossbred heifers (BW = 235±17 kg; average of 10.8 months of age) grazing annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum; cv. ‘Nelson’) at low stocking rate. Treatments were: 1) no supplementation (CON); 2) 0.5% BW of ground corn (GC05); 3) 0.5% BW of soybean hull pellets (SB05); 4) 1% BW of ground corn (GC1); and 5) 1% BW of soybean hull pellets (SB1). Lower levels of supplements (0.5% BW) allowed for greater (P < 0.05) ADG (1.26 and 1.21 kg for GC05 and SB05, respectively), production per hectare and lower age and BW at puberty. Ground corn or SB at 1% BW negatively affected (P < 0.05) growth (0.88 and 0.95 kg, respectively), reproductive performance, number of steps, and grazing time (329 and 354 minutes, respectively) of heifers. Patch grazing time and bite rate were affected (P < 0.05) by grazing period due to changes in nutritive value of annual ryegrass and search for newly grown green leaves. Beef replacement heifers stocked at a low stocking rate with no supplementation may have a better development when compared to 1% BW supplementation using GC or SB and similar to a 0.5% BW supplementation level.
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".