MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121082746 · doi:10.1093/tas/txaa236

Effect of silage source, physically effective neutral detergent fiber, and undigested neutral detergent fiber concentrations on performance and carcass characteristics of finishing steers

2021· article· en· W3121082746 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersBeef Cattle Research CouncilGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSilageNeutral Detergent FiberRandomized block designAnimal scienceDry matterCrossbreedForageStrawBiologyTotal mixed rationFiberAgronomyChemistryLactationIce calving

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study was designed to evaluate the effect of silage source (barley vs. wheat silage) when harvested at two chop lengths (low vs. high physically effective neutral detergent fiber [peNDF]) and when barley silage was partially replaced with straw to increase the undigested neutral detergent fiber (uNDF) concentration on performance and carcass characteristics of finishing steers. Four hundred and fifty yearling commercial crossbred steers with an initial body weight (BW) of 432 ± 30.5 kg were allocated to 30 pens and fed diets containing 90% concentrate:10% forage for 123 d in a completely randomized block design with a 2 × 2 + 1 factorial arrangement. Treatments included 1) barley silage (BarS) with low peNDF (LpeNDF); 2) BarS with high peNDF (HpeNDF); 3) BarS with straw to yield a diet with LpeNDF + uNDF; 4) wheat silage (WhS) LpeNDF; and 5) WhS HpeNDF. There were no silage × peNDF interactions for dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG), or gain to feed ratio (G:F), but cattle fed WhS LpeNDF had a lower (P < 0.01) proportion of yield grade 3 and a greater proportion in yield grade 2 carcasses than cattle fed BarS LpeNDF or HpeNDF and WhS HpeNDF. Cattle fed WhS LpeNDF had greater (P = 0.02) incidence of severe liver abscesses when compared with cattle fed BarS LpeNDF or HpeNDF and WhS HpeNDF. Cattle fed BarS consumed less (P < 0.01) uNDF as a percentage of BW, had increased (P = 0.02) ADG, heavier (P = 0.02) hot carcass weight, with greater (P = 0.01) back fat thickness, and (P < 0.01) incidence of minor liver abscesses when compared with cattle fed WhS. Feeding HpeNDF did not affect DMI, ADG, or G:F, but increased (P = 0.02) marbling score and reduced (P < 0.01) the proportion AA quality grade and increased (P < 0.01) those classified as AAA when compared with cattle fed LpeNDF. Cattle fed low uNDF had lesser (P < 0.01) uNDF intake as a percentage of BW, greater dressing percentage (P = 0.01), had a lower (P < 0.01) proportion of carcasses in yield grade 2, and a greater (P < 0.01) proportion of carcasses in yield grade 3 when compared with cattle fed high uNDF. Thus, silage source, peNDF, and uNDF content do not impact DMI or G:F when diets contain 10% forage, but BarS relative to WhS as well strategies increasing the peNDF concentration may increase ADG, HCW, back fat thickness, dressing percentage, marbling score, and carcasses classified as quality grade AAA. Future research is needed to evaluate the usefulness of peNDF and uNDF in rations for finishing cattle.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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