Effects of the Method of Conservation of Timothy on Nitrogen Metabolism in Lactating Dairy Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six ruminally and duodenally cannulated lactating primiparous Holstein cows were used to study the effects of different methods of conservation of timothy on N metabolism. Cows were assigned randomly to 2 replicated 3 x 3 Latin squares (35-d periods). Because of missing data from 2 cows, data were analyzed as a 3 x 4 Youden square. Diets contained a similar concentrate (44% of total ration on a dry matter basis) plus first-cut timothy conserved as hay, or as restrictively (formic) or extensively fermented silage (inoc). Crude protein contents were 10.4, 13.6, and 14.8% for hay, formic, and inoc, respectively. Hay and formic had a high soluble carbohydrate content (> or =8.0% of dry matter) and formic and inoc had a high soluble protein content (> or =8.0% of dry matter). Haying and restricting fermentation resulted in increased efficiency of partition to milk N (30.9, 28.2, 24.7% of N intake for hay, formic, and inoc, respectively). Despite a 14% lower N intake with hay, no effects of treatments were detected on microbial protein synthesis and apparent intestinal digestion of essential AA. Haying reduced feed protein degradation in the rumen, whereas this effect was not observed when restricting fermentation in the silage. Haying and restricting fermentation induced a lipogenic fermentation pattern in the rumen (4.55, 4.23, and 3.78 ratio of acetate to propionate for hay, formic, and inoc), but no effects on milk fat yield and plasma glucose were observed. Whole-body protein metabolism was unaffected by treatments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".