MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131495929 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.1627

The ratios of degradation characteristics of forages in the rumen of dairy cows: effect of variety and stage of maturity

2004· article· en· W2131495929 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Peiqiang Yu, J. J. McKinnon, D. A. Christensen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsRumenForageAnimal scienceDry matterChemistrySilageBiologyBotanyAgronomyFood scienceFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In situ digestive characteristics of neutral detergent fibre (NDF), non‐fibre carbohydrates (NFC) and crude protein (CP) in alfalfa and timothy were determined in the rumen of dairy cows. Two varieties of alfalfa (Pioneer and Beaver) and timothy (Climax and Joliotte) were grown in western Canada and cut at three maturity stages (alfalfa: 1 = early bud, 2 = late bud, 3 = early bloom; timothy: 1 = joint, 2 = pre – bloom head, 3 = full head). Measured ruminal degradation characteristics were soluble fraction (NFC, CP), undegradable fraction (NDF, CP), lag time (NDF) and rate of degradation of the insoluble but degradable fraction (NDF, NFC, CP). All measured characteristics showed large differences between the two forage species (alfalfa vs timothy) and to a lesser extent between the maturity stages and varieties. Mean total rumen available NDF (248.6 vs 282.5 g kg−1 dry matter (DM)), NFC (200.5 vs 106.1 g kg−1 DM) and CP (139.7 vs 44.5 g kg−1 DM) differed (p < 0.01) between alfalfa and timothy. Based on the measured characteristics, degradation ratios were calculated between total rumen available N and carbohydrates (FN/FCHO), soluble N and carbohydrates (SN/SCHO) and rumen available insoluble N and carbohydrates (EN/ECHO). The ratios showed large differences between the two forages species and to a lesser extent between the varieties and stages of maturity. Alfalfa species had significantly higher (p < 0.01) ratios of FN/FCHO (49.8 vs 18.3 g kg−1), SN/SCHO (115.0 vs 36.1 g kg−1) and EN/ECHO (28.3 vs 12.0 g kg−1) than timothy. These results indicate that alfalfa varieties exhibited a superior rumen fermentation ratio (optimum FN/FCHO = 25–33 g N kg−1 carbohydrates). The results also suggest a potential N loss in alfalfa and N shortage in timothy. Comparing the two varieties of alfalfa, no differences (p > 0.05) were found in the ratios of FN/FCHO and EN/ECHO, but a significant difference (p < 0.05) was found in SN/SCHO (132.3 vs 97.6 g kg−1). However, comparing the two varieties of timothy, there were significant differences (p < 0.01) in FN/FCHO (23.8 vs 12.8 g kg−1) and EN/ECHO (15.3 vs 8.7 g kg−1) ratios but not in SN/SCHO ratio (p > 0.05), indicating large differences between legume and grass. As plant maturity advanced from stage 1 to stage 3, there were no significant changes in all ratios in alfalfa and timothy except the EN/ECHO ratio in timothy (14.3, 13.4 and 8.3 g kg−1 at stages 1, 2 and 3 respectively). It was concluded that the degradation characteristic ratios were dependent on species, variety and/or stage of maturity. Such ratios could be used to optimise a dairy diet composition with regard to rumen fermentation. Copyright © 2004 Society of Chemical Industry

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207