Effect of Dietary Corn Stalk Inclusion on the Performance of Non-Nutritive Oral Behaviors of Drylot-Housed Beef Steers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary forage levels contribute to the performance of non-nutritive oral behaviors (NNOB) in cattle, yet the impact of varying forage levels on these behaviors is unknown. To evaluate the impact of dietary corn stalk inclusion (CSI) levels on NNOB, rumination time, and activity, pre-dominantly British-continental crossbred drylot-housed steers (n=27) were blocked by weight and randomly assigned to one of three dietary treatments (5%, 10%, or 15%) of CSI on a DM basis. Animals were fitted with a rumination collar upon arrival that measured rumination time and activity and video recorded. Cattle that spent more time bar licking had greater DMI, tended to have greater ADG and be more active. CSI in this study did influence NNOB performance; however, the impacts observed were not as expected. Cattle fed the 10% CSI performed the most bar licking and tongue rolling. This pilot investigation suggest that these CSI were insufficient to have a meaningful impact on NNOBs. Cattle spending more time bar licking and bar licked more frequently may be more orally motivated as reflected in their increased DMI and activity levels.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it