Effects of a phytogenic feed additive on growth performance, feed intake, and carcass traits of beef steers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of a commercial phytogenic feed additive (PFA) on growth performance, feed efficiency, carcass traits, liver abscesses, and the immune response of growing and finishing steers. Forty-five crossbred Angus steers (initial BW = 272 ± 20.5 kg) housed in individual pens (4.9 × 1.8 m) were used in a randomized complete block design in a 110-d growing and 120-d finishing experiment. Steers were blocked by BW and allocated to 1 of 3 treatments: control (without PFA and monensin), PFA at 500 mg/steer daily, or monensin at 300 mg/steer daily. Steers were fed a TMR ad libitum once daily and weighed on d 32, 59, and 110 in the growing phase but only at the beginning and the end of the finishing phase. During growing, DMI did not differ, whereas final BW (trend; 415 vs. 403 kg) and ADG (numerically; 1.31 vs. 1.20 kg/d) were greater with PFA than control but did not differ from monensin (BW = 422 kg and ADG = 1.38 kg/d). Gain:feed was greater with monensin (0.173) than with PFA (0.161) and for the control (0.156). During finishing, ADG, G:F, and carcass traits did not differ, whereas DMI and acute proteins were lesser with monensin than with PFA and for the control. Growing steers fed PFA had similar DMI and ADG but lesser G:F than did those given monensin. Both PFA and monensin resulted in similar growth performance and G:F in the finishing phase.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".