MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2118771300 · doi:10.4141/a03-046

Effect of partially replacing silage with straw-barleysoybean meal mixtures on cow-calf performance

2004· article· en· W2118771300 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
E. Charmley, 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
KeywordsSilageAnimal scienceTotal mixed rationIce calvingSoybean mealMealUreaStrawBiologyChemistryFood scienceLactationAgronomyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forty-eight multiparous, medium-framed cows, calving between Jan. 02 and Mar. 05 were used in a 3 × 2 factorial experiment with three totally mixed ration (TMR) formulations and two levels of protein supplementation. The TMRs were formulated to contain 75, 50 or 25% silage (DM basis). The balance of the diet comprised barley, barley straw, soybean meal and urea, such that all TMRs were formulated to be isoenergetic and isonitrogenous. Supplemental protein was supplied as soybean meal at either 0 or 0.44 kg DM d-1. Diets were fed from Jan. 11 to turnout on May 26. Intake and performance were monitored during this period, and performance at pasture was recorded until weaning on Sep. 03. The only interactions between TMR and protein supplementation were a positive response to protein for DM intake (P < 0.05) at the 50% silage level and for blood urea N (P < 0.05) at the 25% silage level. Reducing the amount of silage in the TMR had no effects on calf performance or milk production, except that milk protein concentration was higher when the TMR contained 50% silage (quadratic effect; P < 0.04). However as the percentage of silage in the TMR declined, cows lost less body weight (linear effect; P < 0.001) and appeared to improve in condition. The interval between calving and conception increased linearly as the percentage of silage in the TMR declined (P < 0.05). Supplemental protein had no major effects on performance, but limited the loss of body condition during the feeding period (P < 0.03), although this was offset by increased loss of condition on pasture (P < 0.01). There were no effects of protein supplementation on calf performance or reproductive efficiency. It is concluded that silage can be successfully replaced with other ingredients in winter beef rations, provided the nutrient concentration is balanced. Supplemental protein had little effect on any parameters of performance. 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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