The Proportion of the Diet to which Fibrolytic Enzymes are Added Affects Nutrient Digestion by Lactating Dairy Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eight lactating Holstein cows, four with ruminal cannulas, were used in a duplicated 4 x 4 Latin square design to investigate a fibrolytic enzyme product characterized by xylanase and cellulase activities (Promote N.E.T. Agribrands International, St. Louis, MO). The diet consisted of concentrate containing rolled barley and supplement, barley silage and alfalfa haylage (55% to 45% DM basis, forage to concentrate ratio) and differed in enzyme application: 1) control, 2) enzyme applied to concentrate (45% of TMR), 3) enzyme applied to supplement (4% of TMR), and 4) enzyme applied to premix (0.2% of TMR). All diets that were supplemented with the enzyme product delivered about 1.0 grams per cow per day. Digestibility of OM, NDF and ADF in the total tract was increased in comparison to the control when enzymes were added to the entire concentrate. Enzyme treatments that were applied to a smaller portion of the diet showed only numerical increases in digestibility over the control. However, there was an increase in microbial N synthesis for cows fed enzymes added to the premix. The effects of enzyme supplementation on milk production and composition were not statistically significant, but cows receiving the enzyme product added to the concentrate had a numerically higher FCM compared to the control cows. These results indicate that enzyme supplementation increases total tract digestibility of organic matter and fiber. The proportion of the diet to which the enzyme is applied must be maximized to ensure a beneficial response.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".