MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Rumen Acid Load from Feed and Forage Particle Size on Ruminal pH and Dry Matter Intake in the Lactating Dairy Cow

2006· article· en· W2077046138 on OpenAlexafffund
Budi Rustomo, Ousama AlZahal, N. E. Odongo, T.F. Duffield, B.W. McBride

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDairy Farmers of OntarioUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsLatin squareDry matterForageRumenAnimal scienceSilageTotal mixed rationChemistryNeutral Detergent FiberLactationDairy cattleAgronomyBiologyFood scienceIce calvingFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of level of concentrate acidogenic value (AV) and forage particle size on ruminal pH and feed intake in lactating dairy cows. Two isoenergetic (net energy for lactation = 1.5 +/- 0.01 Mcal/kg) and isonitrogenous (crude protein = 17.4 +/- 0.1% dry matter) concentrates with either a low AV or high AV were formulated and fed in a total mixed ration with either coarsely or finely chopped corn silage and alfalfa haylage ad libitum. Four rumen-fistulated cows (114 +/- 14 d in milk) were randomly assigned to 1 of the 4 treatments in a 4 x 4 Latin square with a 2 x 2 factorial treatment arrangement. Each period consisted of 3-wk (14-d treatment adaptation and 7-d data collection). Increasing the concentrate AV decreased the mean pH (from 6.07 to 5.97) and minimum pH (from 5.49 to 5.34). Cows fed high-AV diets spent a longer time below pH 5.6 (135.1 vs. 236.7 min/d; low-AV diet vs. high-AV diet, respectively) and pH 5.8 (290.0 vs. 480.6 min/d; low-AV diet vs. high-AV diet, respectively) than cows fed low-AV diets. Increasing forage particle size had no effect on the mean and minimum ruminal pH. There was an interaction between concentrate AV and forage particle size on maximum ruminal pH. Increasing forage particle size increased the maximum pH for cows fed the high-AV concentrate (6.69 vs. 6.72; low-AV diet vs. high-AV diet, respectively) and had no effect on the maximum pH for cows fed the low-AV concentrate (6.98 vs. 6.76; low-AV diet vs. high-AV diet, respectively). Increasing the concentrate AV did not affect dry matter intake but reduced neutral detergent fiber intake from 9.7 to 8.8 kg/d. Milk fat content was negatively correlated with time and area below pH 5.6 (time below, r = -0.51; area below, r = -0.56) and pH 5.8 (time below, r = -0.42; area below, r = -0.54). These results suggest that coarse forage particle size can attenuate drops in ruminal pH. However, the ameliorating effects of forage particle size on drops in ruminal pH were more apparent for high-AV diets than for low-AV diets. The AV approach combined with physically effective neutral detergent fiber would therefore improve the formulation of diets and help to mitigate subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207