MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1569074617 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.6703

Nutritive value of maize silage in relation to dairy cow performance and milk quality

2014· review· en· W1569074617 on OpenAlexaff
Nazir Ahmad Khan, Peiqiang Yu, J.W. Cone, W.H. Hendriks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilageDry matterStarchForageComposition (language)Animal scienceAgronomyFood scienceBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maize silage has become the major forage component in the ration of dairy cows over the last few decades. This review provides information on the mean content and variability in chemical composition, fatty acid (FA) profile and ensiling quality of maize silages, and discusses the major factors which cause these variations. In addition, the effect of the broad range in chemical composition of maize silages on the total tract digestibility of dietary nutrients, milk production and milk composition of dairy cows is quantified and discussed. Finally, the optimum inclusion level of maize silage in the ration of dairy cows for milk production and composition is reviewed. The data showed that the nutritive value of maize silages is highly variable and that most of this variation is caused by large differences in maturity at harvest. Maize silages ensiled at a very early stage (dry matter (DM) < 250 g kg(-1)) were particularly low in starch content and starch/neutral detergent fibre (NDF) ratio, and resulted in a lower DM intake (DMI), milk yield and milk protein content. The DMI, milk yield and milk protein content increased with advancing maturity, reaching an optimum level for maize silages ensiled at DM contents of 300-350 g kg(-1), and then declined slightly at further maturity beyond 350 g kg(-1). The increases in milk (R(2) = 0.599) and protein (R(2) = 0.605) yields with maturity of maize silages were positively related to the increase in starch/NDF ratio of the maize silages. On average, the inclusion of maize silage in grass silage-based diets improved the forage DMI by 2 kg d(-1), milk yield by 1.9 kg d(-1) and milk protein content by 1.2 g kg(-1). Further comparisons showed that, in terms of milk and milk constituent yields, the optimum grass/maize silage ratio depends on the quality of both the grass and maize silages. Replacement of grass silage with maize silage in the ration, as well as an increasing maturity of the maize silages, altered the milk FA profile of the dairy cows, notably, the concentration of the cis-unsaturated FAs, C18:3n-3 and n-3/n-6 ratio decreased in milk fat. Despite variation in nutritive value, maize silage is rich in metabolizable energy and supports higher DMI and milk yield. Harvesting maize silages at a DM content between 300 and 350 g kg(-1) and feeding in combination with grass silage results in a higher milk yield of dairy cows.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations245
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207