Ruminal degradabilities and intestinal digestibilities of canola meals and the production response of cows fed canola meal with varying concentration of starch sources.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canola meal (CM) is a by-product in the manufacturing process of canola oil which can be performed with or without using solvent extraction. It is a protein supplement which has grown its importance in dairy cattle feeding competing with soybean meal (SBM). However, final quality of the feed depends on the oil extraction process and the production conditions used by the individual processing plant. Two studies were conducted to investigate: 1) the variability among the CM produced in different processing plants and 2) the best starch source or the most suitable proportion of corn and barley to be fed with CM, in order to optimize dairy cattle performance. The first study consisted of an in situ and in vitro experiment where ruminal disappearance kinetics and intestinal digestibility parameters were estimated in seven CM samples obtained from different processing plants located in Canada. Canola meal 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 were obtained from processing plants using solvent extraction and CM12 was from a plant using mechanically extraction. Disappearance and digestibility parameters for CM were compared with SBM. Ruminal degradation and intestinal digestibility varied significantly among treatments. However, values obtained for degradability and digestibility parameters were in agreement with NRC with slight variations. Data from this study suggests that, variabilities in the chemical composition of CM may be because of the production variabilities occurring during CM manufacturing process in different processing plants. In the second experiment, CM was used as the primarily protein supplement with four different ratios of corn and barley 1) 100:0, 2) 67:33, 3) 33:67, and 4) 0:100. Sixteen multiparous Holstein cows were used in 4×4 Latin square design. Production parameters were not significantly different among treatments. Milk production was averaged for 41.2 kg/d and the efficiency of milk production averaged 1.53. There were no significant differences between the milk protein fractions among treatments. However, ruminal propionate and acetate to propionate ratio varied quadratically. Ruminal pH, NH3-N, and plasma glucose concentration were similar to all treatments. Apparent total tract digestibilities of nutrients (except starch) were linearly decreased as the proportion of barley starch increased in the diet. However, total tract starch digestibility averaged 95.5% and was not affected by varying proportions of corn and barley in the diet. Results of this study concludes that there is no significant effect of starch source on animal performances when CM was used as the major protein source, and similar production responses of feeding corn can be obtained by feeding barley or by mixing corn and barley in different proportions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".