MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235192748 · doi:10.1017/s1752756200009170

Effects of stage of maturity and protein supplementation on growth and nitrogen utilisation by cattle fed oat silage

2005· article· en· W4235192748 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. Berthiaume, C. Lafrenière

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the British Society of Animal Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilageDry matterAgronomyBiologyFeedlotCropAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cereal silages are used extensively in the diets of feedlot cattle all over western Canada. Plants are generally harvested at dough stage as this stage is believed to represent the best compromise between feeding value and dry matter yield. However, under the growing conditions of eastern Canada, where cereals are grown as cover crops, it has been argued that harvesting at the boot stage would be beneficial to the establishment of the under sown crop and could improve yields of digestible dry matter. Previous experiments have suggested that cereal silages harvested at boot stage vs soft dough stage (Acosta et al., 1991), although the former were more digestible, resulted in no benefit in terms of animal performance. Our work with grass silages (Berthiaume et al, 1996) showed that this could be due to the highly degradable nature of protein in immature silages, and that protein supplements would be beneficial. This study evaluated the effect of harvesting oats for silage at boot vs milk stage with or without the addition of a protein supplement on nitrogen utilisation and growth of calves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the British Society of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207