Evaluation of kernel processing and processor type in whole-plant sorghum silage: effects on nutrient digestibility and animal performance in backgrounding beef heifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to assess the effects of feeding whole-plant sorghum silage (WPSS) with different kernel processing techniques (KP). Experiment 1 contrasted KP for WPSS on intake and apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) in beef heifers (n = 24, 13 ± 1 mo, 267 ± 10.9 kg of initial body weight [BW]) housed in individual pens (36 m2). Grain sorghum was harvested at hard dough, switching the kernel processor to obtain the WPSS treatments: A) unprocessed (UNP), B) conventionally processed (CONV), and C) shredlage processed (SHRD). Heifers (8/treatment) received ad libitum WPSS from their respective treatment, plus soybean meal top-dressed at 0.5% BW/d (DM basis). Feed, and feces were collected for 5 d; feed was offered once daily, and orts were collected the following day. Fecal samples were collected twice daily, and ATTD was determined using indigestible neutral detergent fiber (NDF) as a marker. Data were analyzed as a completely randomized design, with heifer as the experimental unit, and the following contrasts were performed 1) Processing: UNP vs. (CONV + SHRD) and 2) Processor: CONV vs. SHRD. Processing WPSS increased the ATTD of starch by 4.5% (P = 0.01), reduced fecal starch by 27.5% (P = 0.01), and reduced the change of NDF from feed to orts by 39% (P < 0.01). Heifers fed SHRD had 6.6% greater ATTD of NDF than CONV-fed heifers (P = 0.04). Experiment 2 evaluated the effects of feeding either SHRD or CONV-processed WPSS on growth performance of beef heifers. Whole-plant grain sorghum was harvested at the hard-dough stage, switching the KP as in experiment 1. Angus heifers (n = 96, 15 ± 1 mo, 249.6 ± 28.6 kg of BW) were blocked by initial BW, and randomly assigned to pens (8 heifers/pen, 6 pens/treatment). Diets consisted, all on a DM basis, of WPSS, either SHRD or CONV, at 90.5%, expeller soybean meal at 7.0%, and a vitamin-mineral-protein concentrate at 2.5%. After 14-d of adaptation, growth was measured for 56 d, and feed was offered once daily. Data were analyzed using a randomized complete block design with the pen as the experimental unit. Heifers fed CONV had a 9.6% greater gain-to-feed ratio (P = 0.05) and a 7.4% greater Kleiber ratio (P = 0.05) than SHRD-fed heifers. Apparent net energy of gain tended to be 7.1% greater in CONV-fed heifers (P = 0.06). In conclusion, kernel processing WPSS increased starch digestibility and reduced fecal starch concentration. Using SHRD increased NDF digestibility and feeding CONV-processed WPSS resulted in enhanced growth performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".