MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409408758 · doi:10.1093/tas/txaf048

Yield of hybrid rye silage and its use as a replacement for barley silage on feed intake, growth performance, and carcass quality of growing and finishing steers

2025· article· en· W4409408758 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 · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAlberta Crop Industry Development FundAlberta EnergyUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsSilageRandomized block designFeedlotDry matterForageAnimal scienceAgronomyBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study compared the yield of barley and hybrid rye when harvested for silage, and evaluated the effects of replacing barley silage (BARS) with hybrid rye silage (HRS) on dry matter intake (DMI), growth, and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers. The whole-plant hybrid rye (late milk) and barley (soft dough) were each harvested from 3 replicate 7.85-ha plots in 2022 and 2023 and ensiled (n = 3/treatment/yr). In each year, 192 steers were allocated to 1 of 16 pens in a completely randomized block design for growing (4 pens/treatment/yr) and finishing (5 or 6 pens/treatment/yr) phases. Treatments during the growing phase (84 d) included a control diet (GCON) that contained 60% BARS, and in the remaining treatments HRS replaced 33 (GLOW), 67 (GMED), or 100% (GHIGH) of the BARS (DM basis). Steers were then re-randomized and allocated to 1 of 16 pens for the finishing phase with diets that contained (DM basis) 10% BARS (FCON) or diets where HRS replaced 50% (FMED) or 100% (FHIGH) of the BARS. Steers were fed for 112 d. Forage DM yield did not differ between whole plant hybrid rye and barley (3.96 vs. 3.70 mT/ha). During the growing phase, increasing the HRS inclusion at the expense of BARS decreased DMI (quadratic, P = 0.02), average daily gain (ADG; quadratic, P < 0.01), and final BW (quadratic, P = 0.02) with the magnitude of the response increasing with increasing HRS inclusion. In addition, the gain:feed (G:F) ratio linearly decreased (P < 0.01) with increasing HRS inclusion. During finishing, DMI tended to linearly decrease (P = 0.06), ADG decreased and then increased (quadratic, P = 0.04) with the lowest ADG observed for FMED, while G:F was unaffected. Carcass weight for steers fed FMED and FHIGH did not differ but were lighter (quadratic, P = 0.02) than FCON, and dressing percentage decreased linearly from 58.81 to 58.34% (P = 0.03) as HRS inclusion increased. Carcass yield grade and marbling were unaffected. Increasing HRS inclusion at the expense of BARS linearly decreased the proportion of steers with minor (P = 0.02) and severe (P = 0.04) liver abscesses. In conclusion, while forage yield may not differ between hybrid rye and barley, increasing the inclusion rate of HRS in diets for growing steers reduced DMI and ADG. During finishing, increasing the inclusion of HRS may decrease DMI and resulted in lighter hot carcass weight without affecting carcass yield grade or marbling.

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)0.000
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 score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.228 · 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