152 Effect of Continuous or Intermittent Feeding of Ergot Contaminated Grain in a Mash or Pelleted Form on the Performance of Backgrounding Beef Steers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of feeding pelleted or mash ergot contaminated grain continuously or intermittently on performance and blood parameters of backgrounding steers. Sixty black angus steers (300 ± 29.4 kg) were used in a complete randomized backgrounding (60% barley silage:40% concentrate DM basis) 84 d study. Steers were randomly assigned to 4 different treatments and housed individually. Treatments included: 1) control ration (CON; no added ergot), 2) continuous ergot mash (CEM; fed continuously at 2 ppm), 3) intermittent ergot mash (IEM; fed at 2 ppm on the first wk of each 21 d period and control diet for the remaining 2 wk), and 4) intermittent ergot pellet (IEP; fed at 2 ppm during the first wk of each 21 d period and control diet for the other 2 wk). Calves were weighed every 21 days and blood samples were collected on d 0, 42, and 84. No treatment effects (P>0.05) were observed for complete blood count. Steer DMI was reduced for all ergot diets compared to the CON diet (P< 0.01, 7.45 vs. 8.05 kg/d). Steer ADG was reduced for all ergot diets compared to the CON diet (P< 0.01). CEM fed steers had lower ADG (P< 0.01, 0.980 vs. 0.735 kg) and shrunk final weight (P< 0.01, 366 vs. 350 kg) than CON calves, but CEM and IEM were no different. CEM fed steers had lower Gain:Feed (P< 0.07, 0.130 vs. 0.142) than CON calves. Pelleting ergot contaminated grain did not reduce the impact of ergot alkaloids on any of the measured parameters. Results suggest that continuously or intermittently feeding an ergot contaminated TMR (2 ppm) can significantly reduce the growth performance of backgrounded feedlot steers but no effects were observed for blood parameters. Pelleting was not an effective method of reducing ergot toxicity.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".