Fibrolytic Enzymes and Parity Effects on Feeding Behavior, Salivation, and Ruminal pH of Lactating Dairy Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four multiparous and four primiparous lactating dairy cows fitted with ruminal cannulas were used in a duplicated 4 x 4 Latin square design to study the effects of parity and inclusion of a fibrolytic enzyme product (Agribrands International, St. Louis, MO) on feeding and chewing behavior, salivation, and ruminal pH. Diets consisting of rolled barley, barley silage, and alfalfa haylage (55% forage, DM basis) differed in enzyme application: 1) control, 2) enzyme applied to concentrate (45% of TMR), 3) enzyme applied to supplement (4% of TMR), and enzyme applied to a premix (0.2% of TMR). Enzyme supplementation did not alter daily time spent eating or ruminating, but when enzymes were added to the ration daily, saliva production increased, with no difference among enzyme application treatments. Multiparous cows consumed a greater amount of feed, but spent a similar amount of time eating, compared to primiparous cows. Primiparous cows had shorter ruminating episodes, resulting in lower daily ruminating time compared with multiparous cows. Primiparous cows had lower daily saliva output compared with multiparous cows. These results indicate that application of this fibrolytic enzyme product did not alter the physical structure of the feed, as measured by feeding and chewing variables. The increase in total saliva production observed in cows fed enzyme-supplemented diets may be attributed to a physiological response to compensate for the increase in fermentation products during digestion. The increased intake for multiparous cows is attributed to increased eating rate and not to increased time spent eating. The higher DMI of multiparous cows resulted in increased rumination time needed to process the additional feed and increased salivation to buffer the greater production of VFA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".