Milk from Forage as Affected by Rumen Degradable Protein and Corn Grinding When Feeding Corn- and Alfalfa Silage-Based Diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To increase the production of milk from forage (MF), a previous experiment with alfalfa silage showed the importance of a complementary combination of concentrates and forages offered. When corn silage is fed with alfalfa, increasing the rumen degradable protein (RDP) content in the diet should allow a better utilization of forage energy. To evaluate this hypothesis, 8 multiparous Holstein cows in early lactation were used in a replicated 4 x 4 Latin square design with 3-wk periods. Diets were fed as total mixed rations and were formulated to provide similar levels of net energy for lactation and crude protein but differing in RDP. Corn and alfalfa silages were used. Treatments were: 1) cracked corn-based concentrate providing low RDP [level recommended by the NRC (2001); RDP = 11.1% of dry matter (DM)]; 2) cracked corn-based concentrate providing medium RDP (RDP = 12.8% of DM); 3) cracked corn-based concentrate providing high RDP (RDP = 14.5% of DM); and 4) ground corn-based concentrate providing high RDP (RDP = 13.6% of DM). The first 3 treatments, using cracked corn, were compared on the basis of their RDP level. For these treatments, MF, calculated on a protein basis, decreased and the average of MF calculated on an energy basis and MF calculated on a protein basis tended to decrease as RDP increased. There was no difference for MF calculated on an energy basis between treatments. Increasing dietary RDP levels decreased the milk yield (from 32.8 to 30.7 kg/d) and milk protein yield (from 1,094 to 1,005 g/d) but not the milk fat yield. The milk urea N concentration increased as RDP increased. This suggests that there is no advantage of feeding RDP above the NRC recommendations when diets are based on corn and alfalfa silage. At high RDP levels (treatments 3 and 4), ground corn supported higher DM intake and yields of milk and protein than did cracked corn. Milk from forage, calculated on a protein basis, was higher and milk urea N decreased with ground corn. Even with corn silage in the diet, grinding corn grain proved to be beneficial to milk yield and MF production.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".