Response of lactating dairy cows to dietary protein from canola meal or distillers’ grains on dry matter intake, milk production, milk composition, and amino acid status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acharya I. P., Schingoethe D. J., Kalscheur K. F. and Casper D. P. 2015. Response of lactating dairy cows to dietary protein from canola meal or distillers’ grains on dry matter intake, milk production, milk composition, and amino acid status. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 267–279. A study was conducted to determine the response of feeding two different crude protein (CP) concentrations [low protein (LP, 14.3% CP) and high protein (HP, 16.3% CP)] and sources of protein [canola meal (CM) and high-protein dried distillers’ grains (HPDDG)] on dry matter intake, milk production and composition, and amino acid (AA) status of high producing dairy cows. Sixteen Holstein cows were used in a replicated 4×4 Latin square having a 2×2 factorial arrangement of treatments. All diets contained 55% forage (50% alfalfa hay and 50% corn silage) and 45% concentrate. Diets were formulated to contain LP with CM, LP with HPDDG, HP with CM and HP with HPDDG. Experimental feeding periods were 4 wk with data collected during weeks 3 and 4 of each period. Dry matter intake (24.6 vs. 25.9 kg d −1 for LP and HP, respectively) was increased for cows fed the higher CP diets, milk yield was greater for cows fed HP diets (34.0 vs. 36.4 kg d −1 ), and milk fat percentage was greater for cows fed HP compared with LP, but were similar between dietary protein sources. Feed efficiency calculated as fat-corrected milk and energy-corrected milk was greater for cows fed HP than LP, but was similar between sources. Dietary metabolizable protein of CM diets was utilized more efficiently than from HPDDG diets for milk protein production. Mammary gland extraction efficiency of essential AA indicated that Met was the first limiting AA for CM-based diets while Lys was first limiting for HPDDG-based diets. In summary, canola meal and distillers’ grains are both good quality protein supplements for lactating cows.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".