Effects of limit‐feeding diets with different forage‐to‐concentrate ratios on nutrient intake, rumination, ruminal fermentation, digestibility, blood parameters and growth in Holstein heifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was using a wide range of dietary concentrate levels to investigate the major effects of limit‐feeding on heifers. Twenty‐four Holstein heifers were blocked into six groups and fed with one of four diets containing different levels of concentrate (20%, 40%, 60% and 80% on a dry matter (DM) basis) but with same intakes of metabolizable energy for 28 days. Increasing levels of dietary concentrate caused decreased ( P ≤ 0.02) intakes of dry matter (DMI) and neutral detergent fiber and total rumination time, but increased ( P < 0.01) nonfiberous carbohydrates intake, ruminal concentrations of NH 3 ‐N, propionate and butyrate, and digestibility of DM and crude protein. Dietary concentrate levels had no significant effect on most plasma concentrations and body measurements. The corrected average daily gain ( CADG ) and feed efficency ( ADG / DMI , CFE ) were linearly increased ( P < 0.01) with increasing dietary concentrate levels when gut fill impact was removed. In conclusion, heifers limit‐fed high concentrate diets increased most ruminal fermentation parameters, CADG and CFE with similar body growth and blood metabolites as heifers fed low concentrate diets, and had the potential to be used as an effective feeding strategy in dairy heifers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".