PSIX-11 Impact of a phytogenic feed additive on growth performance, feed intake and carcass traits of finishing steers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a phytogenic feed additive (Digestarom® (DA), Biomin, Getzersdorf, Austria) on growth performance, feed intake, carcass traits, and liver abscesses of finishing beef steers. One hundred and twenty Angus × Charolais crossbred steers (initial BW 488 ± 26.5 kg) were used in a 110-d feeding experiment. Steers were blocked by weight and randomly assigned to 12 pens with 10 steers per pen. Each pen was allocated to 1 of 3 diets. Each diet contained 86.5% barley, 10.0% barley silage and 3.5% vitamin and mineral supplement on a dry matter basis. Digestarom® replaced barley grain in the vitamin and mineral supplement at 1.41 and 2.82 g/kg, to achieve average daily intakes of DA of 0 (Control), 0.5 (LowDA) and 1.0 g (HighDA) per steer. Diets were prepared once daily and offered ad libitum intake. Two pens per treatment were equipped to record individual feed intake ehavior. Steers were weighed every 28 d and carcass traits and liver scores were recorded at slaughter. Dry matter intake (average 9.34 kg/d) and final BW (average 669 kg) did not differ among treatments. Average daily gain (ADG) tended (P < 0.09) to increase in response to DA supplementation (control, 1.82; LowDA, 1.87; and HighDA, 1.95 kg/d), but gain:feed ratio was not affected. Supplementation of DA affected rib-eye area quadratically (P < 0.05) with the largest area observed for LowDA. Total abscessed livers were not affected, whereas proportion of severe liver abscesses was numerically lower (P < 0.15) with DA (31 and 43% for LowDA and HighDA, respectively) compared to the control (50%). The positive effect of DA on ADG and percentage of severely abscessed livers should be validated in larger scale feedlot studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".