Effects of Planting Date on Fiber Digestibility of Whole-Crop Barley and Productivity of Lactating Dairy Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives of the study were to evaluate the effect of planting date on in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility (IVFD) of whole-crop barley (Hordeum vulgare) and its effects on productivity of lactating dairy cows. Two cultivars of barley were planted on May 5 (BM) and June 7 (BJ), 2005 at the Edmonton Research Station, University of Alberta. They were harvested at late-dough stage on July 26 and August 25, respectively, for BM and BJ and ensiled. The BJ had greater 30-h IVFD (61.2 vs. 51.9%) and crude protein concentration (12.4 vs. 8.7%) at harvest compared with BM. Thirty lactating cows, including 6 ruminally cannulated cows, in mid to late lactation (183 +/- 71.7 d in milk; mean +/- standard deviation) were fed diets containing BM or BJ at 58.5% of dietary DM in a crossover design with 19-d periods. The dietary neutral detergent fiber concentration was 30.6 and 28.8% for BM and BJ diets, respectively. Dry matter intake and milk yield were not affected by treatment and averaged 20.2 and 27.2 kg/ d, respectively. The lack of responses could have been attributed to the low-energy demands for cows used in this experiment; ruminal physical fill might not have limited dry matter intake. However, cows fed BJ had greater total tract dry matter digestibility (68.9 vs. 66.1%) and tended to increase body weight gain (864 vs. 504 g/d) compared with those fed BM. Delaying the planting date of barley altered its growing environment and affected nutrient composition and IVFD of whole-crop barley and energy availability to animals. Further research is needed to confirm if the planting date consistently affects nutrient composition and IVFD of barley at harvest.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".