Comparative effects of feeding citrus pulp and grape pomace on nutrient digestibility and utilization in steers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feedlot beef production in tropics and subtropics is being limited by shortage of feed ingredients due to prolonged droughts resulting in high prices of cereal grains and reduced profitability. To alleviate feed shortages and increase profitability for the feedlot industry, it is important to explore underutilized non-conventional resources such as fruit by-products. The current study compared the nutrient intake, digestibility and utilization effects of feeding either 150 g/kg of dried citrus pulp (DCP) or grape pomace (DGP) as alternative dietary fibre sources to 7 months-old Angus steers (281 ± 15.7 kg) under feedlot conditions. Twenty-four steers were assigned to three dietary treatments (8 steers/treatment) in a completely randomised design. Each steer was treated as an experimental unit. Steers were adapted to diets for 21 d followed by 7 d of sample collection during which nutrient intake, digestibility, rumen fermentation parameters, nitrogen retention and microbial N supply were determined. All the data were analysed using the GLIMMIX procedures. Overall, steers fed DGP had the greatest dry matter intake (DM), organic matter (OM) crude protein (CP), ash free neutral detergent fibre (aNDFom), ether extract (EE) and starch intake followed by DCP and control (CON) diets (P ≤ .05). Apparent digestibilities of DM, OM and aNDFom were higher (P ≤ .05) for DCP diet compared to DGP and CON diets. Feeding DCP and DGP diets increased ruminal concentrations of total volatile fatty acids, acetate and isovalerate, and acetate to propionate ratio, and reduced propionate concentrations compared to the CON diet (P ≤ .05). The steers fed the CON diet had the greatest urinary excretions of allantoin, uric acid and total purine derivatives followed by those fed the DCP and DGP diets (P ≤ .05). Nitrogen intake, faecal nitrogen (N), N retention and N efficiency utilization were in the order of DGP > DCP > CON diets (P ≤ .05). Overall, feeding DGP as alternative fibre source to wheat bran improved nutrient intake, retention and efficiency of N utilization but reduced apparent nutrient digestibility compared to DCP. Current finding suggests that DGP may be a better fibre substitute for wheat bran in beef diets than DCP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".