A Comparison of Methods of Adding Fibrolytic Enzymes to Lactating Cow Diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Holstein cows (n = 43) in early lactation were used to investigate effects of method of adding fibrolytic enzymes to diets on feed intake, milk production, and digestibility. Cows were blocked according to parity and calving date and randomly assigned to three treatments: control, enzymes applied to the total mixed ration (E-TMR), or enzymes added to the barley-based concentrate (E-Conc). The enzyme product used was a proprietary blend that contained relatively high xylanase and low cellulase activities (Biovance Technol. Inc., Omaha, NE). An enzyme solution (50 mg of enzyme powder dissolved into 20 ml of water) was sprayed onto each kilogram of total mixed ration (dry matter basis) before feeding. Alternatively, 73 g of enzyme powder, dissolved in 20 L of water, was added per ton of concentrate (50 mg of enzyme/kg of diet dry matter). The total mixed rations contained 24% corn silage, 14% alfalfa hay, and 62% concentrate (dry matter basis) and were offered ad libitum. In vitro gas production assays and two experiments using sheep were conducted to measure the effects of enzyme treatment on digestibility. Dry matter intake (mean: 19.8 kg/d) was not affected by enzyme supplementation. Milk yield (kg/d) was higher for cows fed E-Conc (37.4) than for cows fed control (35.3) or E-TMR (35.2) with no effects on milk composition. Total tract digestibility (%) of dry matter was higher for E-Conc (66.6%) than for the control diet (63.9%) and intermediate for E-TMR (65.7%) when measured in dairy cows. However, the digestibility of the diets was substantially higher when measured in sheep than in dairy cows, with no effects of enzyme supplementation. The results indicate that fibrolytic enzymes have the potential to increase digestibility and milk production in dairy cows because digestion is low relative to potential digestibility. When digestion is higher, as was observed in lambs or in vitro, no improvement in digestibility occurs. Method of enzyme delivery must also be considered to maximize the benefits of using fibrolytic enzymes in dairy cow diets.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Feeding trial of fibrolytic enzymes in dairy cows; animal nutrition.
This experiment studies enzyme delivery in dairy cow diets rather than research methodology.
Animal-nutrition experiment adding fibrolytic enzymes to dairy cow diets.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".