Effects of Treating Whole-plant or Chopped Rice Straw Silage with Different Levels of Lactic Acid Bacteria on Silage Fermentation and Nutritive Value for Lactating Holsteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were carried out to investigate i) the effects of four levels of lactic acid bacteria inoculants (LAB; 0, 210 5 , 310 5 and 410 5 cfu/g fresh forage) and two physical forms of rice straw (whole and chopped rice straw) on silage fermentation quality and nutritive value of rice straw (RS) silage for lactating Holsteins and ii) the effects of the replacement of corn silage (CS) with different inclusion levels (0, 25 and 50%) of LAB treated RS on lactating performance of Holstein dairy cows. Rice straw packed with stretch film was ensiled for 45 d. The results showed that the higher level of LAB inoculants in the silage quadratically decreased pH, NH 3 -N and acetic acid concentrations and increased the contents of lactic acid and total organic acids. The CP content and DM losses in the silage declined linearly as the level of LAB addition was increased. Compared with whole-plant rice straw silage (WRS), chopped rice straw silage (CRS) dramatically reduced pH by 0.83. The concentrations of NH 3 -N were similar in WRS and CRS and both were less than 50 g/kg of total N. Chopping rice straw before ensiling significantly enhanced the lactic acid concentration and total organic acids content whereas the concentration of acetic acid declined. The CP, NDF and ADF content of CRS was 13.4, 5.9 and 10.2% lower than in WRS, respectively. Except for butyric acid concentration, significant interaction effects of inoculation level and physical form of RS were found on all fermentation end-products. Our findings indicated that milk yield and composition were not affected by different level of RS inclusion. However, because of the lower cost of WRS, cows consuming a ration in which WRS was partially substituted for CS had 3.48 Yuan (75% CS+25% WRS) and 4.56 Yuan (50% CS+50% WRS) more economic benefit over those fed a CS-based ration. It was concluded that the chopping process and LAB addition could improve the silage quality, and that substitution of corn silage with RS silage lowered the cost of the dairy cow ration without impairing lactation performance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".