Repeated Ruminal Acidosis Challenges in Lactating Dairy Cows at High and Low Risk for Developing Acidosis: Feed Sorting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was conducted to determine whether the susceptibility of cows to ruminal acidosis influences feed sorting and whether feed sorting changes during a bout of ruminal acidosis. Eight ruminally cannulated cows were assigned to 1 of 2 acidosis risk levels: low risk (LR, mid-lactation cows fed a 60% forage diet) or high risk (HR, early lactation cows fed a 45% forage diet). As a result, diets were intentionally confounded with milk production to represent 2 different acidosis risk scenarios. Cows were exposed to an acidosis challenge in each of two 14-d periods. Each period consisted of 3 baseline days, a feed restriction day (restricting TMR to 50% of ad libitum intake), an acidosis challenge day (1-h meal of 4 kg of ground barley/wheat before allocating the TMR), and a recovery phase. Ruminal pH was measured continuously for the first 9 d of each period using an indwelling system. Feed and orts were sampled for 2 baseline days, on the challenge day, and 1 and 3 d after the challenge day for each cow and subjected to particle size analysis. The separator contained 3 screens (18, 9, and 1.18 mm) and a bottom pan to determine the proportion of long, medium, short, and fine particles, respectively. Sorting was calculated as the actual intake of each particle size fraction expressed as a percentage of the predicted intake of that fraction. All cows sorted against the longest and finest TMR particles and sorted for medium-length particles. Sorting was performed to a greater extent by the HR cows, and this sorting was related to low ruminal pH. Both HR and LR cows altered their sorting behavior in response to acidosis challenges. For the HR cows, severe acidosis was associated with increased sorting for the longer particles in the diet and against the shorter particles, likely to lessen the effects of the very.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".