Effects of increasing amounts of dietary wheat on performance and ruminal fermentation of Holstein cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twelve second-lactation Holstein cows were used in a replicated Latin square design to examine the effects of dietary wheat on lactation performance, ruminal fermentation, and whole-tract nutrient digestibility. Cows were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 diets containing 0, 10, and 20% steam-rolled wheat on a dry matter basis at the expense of steam-rolled barley. Cows were fed and milked twice daily. Six of the cows were ruminally cannulated, and rumen fluid samples were obtained from these cows 18 times during the last 2 d of each period. Treatment did not affect dry matter intake (20.9 kg/d) or yields of milk (36.1 kg/d) or milk components (1.25, 1.10, and 1.67 kg/d for fat, protein, and lactose, respectively). Fat percentage was not different among the treatments but protein content of the milk was reduced by the wheat treatments, and was lower when 10% wheat was included in the diet versus 20%. Cows fed wheat had lower ruminal pH (6.36 vs. 6.44) and greater NH(3)-N (11.49 vs. 8.10 mg/dL) and total volatile fatty acids (121 vs. 113 mM) concentrations than cows not fed wheat. The acetate:propionate ratio was lower for cows fed wheat than for those not fed wheat (3.21 vs. 3.36), but was not different between cows fed 10% versus 20% wheat. Wheat feeding did not alter whole-tract apparent digestibility of dry matter, crude protein, acid detergent fiber, and neutral detergent fiber. Results of this study show that up to 20% steam-rolled wheat can be included in the diet of dairy cows without compromising production or causing subacute ruminal acidosis if adequate fiber is provided and the diets are properly formulated and mixed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".