Effects of increasing the proportion of high-quality grass silage in the diet of dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Swedish dairy cow has almost doubled its annual milk yield over a few decades. This has simultaneously led to an increase in the dietary proportion of concentrate in \norder to meet the increased nutritional requirement of dairy cows. The proportion of forage is often below 50% of dry matter (DM) intake in conventional dairy production \non an annual basis. However, the regulations for organic dairy production stipulate a minimum of 60% DM of forage in the diet, with a permissible decrease to 50% in early \nlactation. The price of concentrate is currently high, so feed is a large expense for dairy farmers and has a large impact on total farm profits. Since the techniques for forage preservation have improved, enabling earlier harvesting, the nutritional quality of grass \nsilage has increased. This may allow partial replacement of concentrate by high-quality grass silage without any adverse effects on milk production. \n \nThis thesis examined the \neffects of replacing concentrate with grass silage of high nutritional quality over the entire lactation. The effects were examined for milk production, enteric methane \nemissions, milk fatty acid composition and profitability. \nOver two consecutive years, a total of 92 dairy cows were randomly assigned to one of three diets that differed in the proportion of forage. After peak lactation, from \nlactation month four, the proportion of forage was gradually increased over the entire lactation up to a maximum in late lactation of 50%, 70% or 90% on a DM basis. \n \nOverall, increasing the dietary proportion of silage up to 70% in late lactation did not significantly affect milk yield compared with feeding 50% silage. Positive effects were shown in terms of milk fatty acid composition and profitability. Increasing in the dietary proportion up to 90% silage in late lactation significantly decreased milk production, but the positive effects on milk fatty acids persisted. Enteric methane emissions showed a tendency to increase with increasing proportion of silage in the diet. The overall conclusion was that there is great potential for increasing the proportion of high-quality grass silage in the diet of high-yielding dairy cows after peak lactation, up to 70% silage in late lactation.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".