Effects of Forage Source and Amount of Concentrate on Rumen and Intestinal Digestion of Nutrients in Late-Lactation Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of dietary forage source with two concentrate concentrations on dry matter (DM) intake, rumen fill, ruminal and intestinal digestibility of nutrients, and duodenal N fractions in lactating cows. Four rumen and duodenal cannulated Holstein cows in late lactation were used in 4 x 4 Latin square design experiment with 21-d periods. Diets were 1) 65% first-cut alfalfa silage and 35% concentrate, 2) 50% alfalfa and 50% concentrate, 3) 65% bromegrass silage and 35% concentrate, and 4) 50% bromegrass and 50% concentrate. Dry matter intake was not affected by forage source but tended to be (P = 0.08) higher for cows fed diets with 50% concentrate. Rumen fill was greater (P < 0.01) for cows fed bromegrass compared with those fed alfalfa silage. Ruminal and intestinal digestion of DM was not affected by dietary forage source or concentrate level. Total N intake was greater for cows fed alfalfa-based diets, reflecting the higher crude protein content of alfalfa. However, total N flow at the duodenum was not affected by either forage source or concentrate in the diet. Although forage source influenced the site of digestion of some nutrients no significant effects on total tract digestibilities were observed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".