Evaluation of canola meal derived from <i>Brassica juncea</i> and <i>Brassica napus</i> seed as an energy source for feedlot steers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nair, J., Penner, G. B., Yu, P., Lardner, H. A., McAllister, T., Damiran, D. and McKinnon, J. J. 2015. Evaluation of canola meal derived from Brassica juncea and Brassica napus seed as an energy source for feedlot steers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 599–607. This study evaluated the substitution of barley grain with two sources of canola meal (CM) derived from Brassica napus and B. juncea on performance of feedlot cattle. Crossbred steers [n=300; initial body weight (BW)=311±23 kg] were allotted to 25 pens with each pen randomly assigned to one of five treatments. The control backgrounding diet consisted of 39% barley silage, 30.4% barley grain, 22.8% brome hay and 7.8% supplement, while the control finishing diet consisted of 88.3% barley grain, 4.4% barley silage and 7.3% supplement (dry matter basis). The control diets contained no CM during backgrounding and finishing. Treatment diets included 15 and 30% B. napus or B. juncea meal during backgrounding and 10 and 20% during finishing, with canola meal replacing barley grain in both phases. In each phase the data were analyzed as a 2×2 factorial plus a control. Cattle fed CM substituted diets during backgrounding had greater (P<0.05) dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG) and final BW relative to those fed the control diet. Gain to feed ratio (G:F) and calculated net energy for maintenance (NE m ) and gain (NE g ) were not affected (P>0.05) by treatment. During finishing, DMI and ADG did not differ (P>0.05) across treatments. Feed efficiency, NE m and NE g decreased (P<0.05) at the 20% CM level relative to 10%. Over the entire feeding period, G:F, NE m and NE g were reduced (P<0.05) with higher inclusion of CM in the diet. The percentage of cattle grading Canada AAA was reduced (P<0.05) by CM. These results indicate that regardless of type CM has a lower net energy value than barley grain and that it is not an equivalent energy substitute for cereal grains over the entire feeding period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".