MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414831422 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf300.154

198 Improving the nutritional value of wheat, canola, and flax straw to beef cattle with calcium hydroxide treatment.

2025· article· en· W4414831422 on OpenAlexaff
Cassidy Ross, Gabriel O Ribeiro, G.B. Penner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhosphorus and nutrient management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrawDry matterLatin squareBeef cattleCalciumCalcium hydroxideForageNutrientMoisture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Beef cattle can utilize byproduct and high fiber feeds, such as straw, that are not suitable for use in human and non-ruminant diets. However, straw has a low digestibility, limiting its inclusion in cattle diets. The objective of this study was to determine if calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2] treatment of straws improve nutrient digestibility. Six ruminally canulated heifers were used in a 6 × 6 Latin square to determine the effect of calcium hydroxide treatment of wheat (WS), canola (CS), and flax (FS) straw on dry matter intake (DMI), ruminal pH, the concentration of ruminal short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), and dry matter digestibility. Straw was included at 40% of the dietary dry matter (DM) and was hydrated to 50% moisture before being combined with either calcium hydroxide (CH) or limestone (CTL) at 5% of forage DM. Experimental periods lasted 24 d, with 14 d of dietary adaptation and 10 d of data and sample collection. Sample collection included feed and refusals, total fecal output, and ruminal fluid. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS 9.4 with fixed effects of calcium treatment, straw type, and the treatment × straw type interaction, with random effects of heifer and period. No interactions between straw type and calcium treatment were observed (P ≥ 0.20). Heifers consuming CH treated straw had a 10.8% greater DMI than those consuming CTL treated straw (P < 0.01), with the greatest intake observed for WS and FS (P < 0.01). Calcium treatment did not affect ADG (P = 0.35), but ADG was greatest for WS and least for CS (1.03 vs. -0.10 kg/d; P < 0.01). No effect of CH treatment was observed for ruminal pH (P ≥ 0.33), but heifers fed CS had the greatest mean ruminal pH and those fed FS had the least (P < 0.01). The total ruminal SCFA concentration was greater for heifers fed CH treated straw over CTL (124.8 vs. 110.2 mM; P < 0.01), and was less for heifers fed CS compared to WS and FS (P < 0.01). The molar proportion of acetate was greater for CH over CTL (P < 0.01). Dry matter digestibility was increased by 3.9% for CH compared to CTL (58.3 vs. 56.1%; P = 0.03) and was greatest for WS compared to FS and CS (P < 0.01). Calcium hydroxide treatment improved dry matter intake, digestibility, and total SCFA concentration, regardless of straw type, suggesting it may be an effective strategy to enhance the nutritional value of straw.

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)0.000
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 score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicPhosphorus and nutrient managementFrench-language works237,207