MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394705674 · doi:10.1093/tas/txae059

Production and use of dry-rolled hybrid rye grain as a replacement for barley grain on growth performance and carcass quality of feedlot steers

2024· article· en· W4394705674 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsFeedlotAgronomyGrain qualityAnimal scienceQuality (philosophy)Production (economics)Environmental scienceBiologyAgricultural engineeringEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objectives were to compare cereal grain and straw yield between barley and hybrid rye (HR) and to evaluate whether the inclusion of dry-rolled HR grain as a replacement for barley grain affected feed intake and growth for growing cattle, and feed intake, growth, and carcass characteristics for finishing cattle. Crop yield was measured by directly weighing harvested grain and straw bales (n = 3 plots/grain type). Three-hundred sixty steers with an initial body weight (BW) of 348 ± 40 kg were stratified by BW and randomly assigned to 1 of the 24 pens during the growing phase (n = 8; 65 d). The control diet (BCON) included 60.22% barley grain with HR included by replacing 50 (BMID) or 100% (BHIGH) of the barley grain on a dry matter (DM) basis. Steers were re-randomized for the finishing phase (n = 6; 118 d) and treatments included a control diet containing 88.60% barley grain (FCON) with HR replacing 33 (FLOW), 67 (FMED), or 100% (FHIGH) of the barley grain (DM basis). The grain yield was greater (P = 0.04) and straw yield tended (P = 0.06) to be less for HR than barley. There were no effects of HR inclusion on DM intake (DMI) or G:F during the growing phase, but average daily gain (ADG) responded quadratically (P = 0.02) with cattle fed 50% HR having the greatest gain. During finishing, DMI decreased linearly as HR grain inclusion increased (P < 0.01). ADG initially increased from FCON to FLOW followed by a decrease with increasing HR inclusion (quadratic, P < 0.01), but G:F was not affected. Hot carcass weight was greatest for FCON with the magnitude of difference between FCON and the HR treatments increasing with increasing inclusion of HR (quadratic, P = 0.02). There was a linear increase in dressing percentage (P = 0.02) and a linear reduction in back fat thickness (P = 0.04) with increasing inclusion of HR. Increasing the inclusion of HR during finishing cubically (P < 0.01) affected the proportion of minor and severe liver abscesses with an average of 34.60% severely abscessed livers when HR was included compared to 11.11% for BCON. HR may have greater grain yield than barley, and partial replacement of barley grain with HR may improve ADG without affecting DMI or G:F during the growing phase. However, replacing barley grain in finishing diets with HR decreases DMI, and increases the risk of minor and severe liver abscesses, but does not affect feed conversion, suggesting HR should not replace more than 33% of the barley grain to maintain ADG.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.235 · 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