MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2107574737 · doi:10.4141/a03-105

The partial replacement of silage with straw, with or without barley or soybean meal, in rations for winter calving beef cows

2004· article· en· W2107574737 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
E. Charmley and J. L. Duynisveld

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsSilageStrawAnimal scienceIce calvingBiologySoybean mealWeaningBeef cattleMealAgronomyLactationFood sciencePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of partially replacing grass-legume silage with barley straw, without or with either supplemental energy or protein, were assessed in 72 lactating beef cows. Diets were fed from calving in January-February until turnout to pasture in late May. Performance of cows and their calves was measured over this period, and weight and body condition were measured at weaning in September. Apparent digestibility and N balance of these diets was also assessed in growing steers. Replacing half the silage with barley straw reduced diet digestibility (P < 0.05), intake (P < 0.05), body weight (BW) gain (P < 0.001) and body condition (P < 0.001) of cows but did not affect BW gain or weaning weights of calves. Reproductive performance was also unaffected, although overall production efficiency (kg weaned calf kg-1 cow BW) was impaired (P < 0.10). When the silage-straw diet was supplemented with barley, metabolizable energy (ME) intake was increased to the level supplied by the all-silage diet. However, there was a tendency for cows to partition more ME to calf growth and less to body reserves as indicated by body condition score (P < 0.05). This may have been related to better N utilization, since N losses in urine were lower for steers fed the barley-supplemented mixture than those fed silage (P < 0.01). When the silage-straw was supplemented with soybean meal (SBM) to increase crude protein (CP) to equal the all-silage diet, there were no benefits for the cow or calf, because SBM reduced intake relative to silage fed alone (P < 0.001). Thus, although supplementing with SBM improved N balance, relative to silage (P < 0.01), there was no response in calf performance, probably because of insufficient ME intake in the cow. Although silage appears not to be well balanced for the nutrient requirements of lactating beef cows, attempts to optimise nutrient supply did not markedly improve growth performance of the calf or reproductive performance of the cow. Key words: Beef cow, cow-calf, silage, straw, gains, weaning weight, reproduction

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→