Comparison of the fermentation characteristics, aerobic stability and nutritive value of barley and corn silages ensiled with or without a mixed bacterial inoculant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addah, W., Baah, J., Groenewegen, P., Okine, E. K. and McAllister, T. A. 2011. Comparison of the fermentation characteristics, aerobic stability and nutritive value of barley and corn silages ensiled with or without a mixed bacterial inoculant. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 133–146. Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and corn (Zea mays) silage are the most commonly used forages in feedlot diets in western Canada, and are often inoculated in an effort to improve their preservation and quality. However, the relative value of these two forages in feedlot diets or their responses to inoculation have not previously been compared. Whole-crop barley (B) and corn (C) forage were ensiled for 63 and 77 d, respectively, in both mini silos and Ag Bags® without and with inoculation [Lactobacillus plantarum, Enterococcus faecium, Pediococcus acidilactici at 1.0×10 5 CFU g -1 forage; inoculated barley (IB), inoculated corn (IC)]. At the end of the ensiling period in mini silos, the pH of C and IC was lower (P<0.001) than B and IB silage, but lactate:acetate was higher (P<0.001) in IB than other silages (8:1 vs. ∼4:1). Inoculation did not affect dry matter (DM) loss during ensiling, but losses in barley were higher (P<0.001) than in corn silage. Barley silage appeared to be more stable than corn after 2 d of aerobic exposure. Inoculation of barley or corn did not affect in situ organic matter disappearance (OMD) or DM intake, average daily gain (ADG) or feed efficiency of steers. However, steers fed barley silage had a higher (P=0.037) DM intake, ADG (P=0.002) and improved (P=0.002) feed efficiency compared with those fed corn silage. The inoculant was more effective at improving the fermentation and aerobic stability of barley as compared with corn, and growth and feed efficiency of cattle fed barley silage was superior to those fed corn silage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".