MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413637438 · doi:10.2478/aoas-2025-0074

Investigation of Methods to Enhance the Efficiency of Canola Meal Use in Pelleted Calf Starter Mixtures and Comparisons with Other High-Protein by-Products*

2025· article· en· W4413637438 on OpenAlexaff
P. Górka, Klaudia Krupa, Marcin Podżorski, Marcin Przybyło, Jarosław Kański, Z.M. Kowalski, Katarzyna Burakowska, G.B. Penner, Anna Rogiewicz, Rob Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Industry and Aquatic Biology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Bio-Systems (Canada)University of ManitobaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniwersytet Rolniczy im. Hugona Kołłątaja w Krakowie
KeywordsCanolaStarterFood scienceMealRapeseedBiologySoybean mealBiotechnologyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It was hypothesized that the efficiency of canola meal (CM; also known as 00 rapeseed meal) utilization in pelleted starter mixtures for calves can be increased with the use of feed additives and additional processing. Additionally, it was hypothesized that CM would yield greater feed intake, growth, and improved fecal scores compared to wheat bran and DDGS when included as a high-protein by-product in a pelleted starter mixture. In order to verify the hypotheses, four studies were conducted to determine whether lysine (Lys) inclusion, feed enzyme inclusion, and CM extrusion improve the efficiency of CM utilization in pelleted calf starter mixtures, and to compare effects of CM to that when other high-protein by-products are fed. In study 1, 45 female Holstein calves (44.7±4.2 kg, 24.2±2.8 days of age) were allocated to one of three treatments and fed a pelleted starter mixture containing: 1) soybean meal (SBM) as the main source of protein (TSBM); 2) CM as the main source of protein (TCM); or 3) CM as the main source of protein with supplemental rumen-unprotected Lys (TCML). Final body weight (BW), average daily gain (ADG), starter intake, and fecal score did not differ among treatments (P≥0.20) but the gain to feed ratio was greater for TSBM than for TCM and TCML (P<0.01). No differences between TCM and TCML were found. In study 2, 100 female Holstein calves (44.3±4.8 kg, 17.7±2.1 days of age) were assigned to one of four treatments and fed pelleted starter mixtures with: 1) low CM inclusion (10%; LOW); 2) low CM inclusion supplemented with feed enzymes (xylanase, glucanase, invertase, protease, cellulase, amylase, and mannanase; LOW+); 3) high CM inclusion (32%; HIGH); and 4) high CM inclusion supplemented with the same feed enzymes (HIGH+) as for LOW+. In treatments that included feed enzymes, final BW, ADG, and starter intake were greater while the number of days with diarrhea was lower (P≤0.05). The number of days with diarrhea was also lower for high CM treatments (P<0.01). In study 3, 120 female Holstein calves (42.6±4.4 kg, 17.2±2.1 days of age) were allocated to one of four treatments and fed a pelleted starter mixture: 1) containing SBM as a main source of protein (CTRL), or diets where: 2) SBM was partially replaced by wheat bran and corn DDGS (TRBP); 3) SBM was partially replaced by CM (TRCM); and 4) SBM was partially replaced by CM with feed enzymes (the same used in study 2; TRCM+). Feed intake and the gain to feed ratio did not differ among treatments. Final BW tended (P=0.10) to be higher for CTRL than for TRBP and TRCM, but the CTRL group had a higher fecal score, a greater number of days with diarrhea, and more episodes of diarrhea compared to TRBP and TRCM (P≤0.05). No differences between TRCM and TRCM+ were detected. In study 4, 120 female Holstein calves (44.1±4.9 kg, 18.3±1.9 days of age) were allocated to one of four treatments and fed a pelleted starter mixture with: 1) moderate CM inclusion (24%; MC); 2) high CM inclusion (34%; HC); 3) moderate inclusion of extruded CM (MEC); and 4) high inclusion of extruded CM (HEC). Fecal score tended to be (P=0.10) and the number of days with diarrhea was (P<0.01) reduced when extruded CM was used in the starter mixture but BW, ADG, and the gain to feed ratio were not different among treatments. In conclusion, rumen-unprotected lysine supplementation in a pelleted starter mixture containing CM as the main source of protein does not improve the performance of calves although inclusion of enzymes may improve feed intake and ADG of calves. Extrusion of CM improves fecal score of calves but does not affect feed intake or growth. Canola meal should be considered at least as valuable source of protein as wheat bran and DDGS.

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Animal ScienceSame topicFood Industry and Aquatic BiologyFrench-language works237,207