The effect of the forage-to-concentrate ratio of the partial mixed ration and the quantity of concentrate in an automatic milking system for lactating Holstein cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of the forage-to-concentrate ratio of the partial mixed ration (PMR) and the quantity of concentrate offered in an automated milking system (AMS), in a feed-first guided-flow barn, on the behavior and performance of dairy cows. Eight ruminally cannulated multiparous Holstein cows were used in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin square balanced for carry-over effects. Treatments were arranged in a 2 × 2 factorial consisting of a PMR that contained (dry matter basis) either a low (54:46; L-FOR) or a high (64:36; H-FOR) forage-to-concentrate ratio and AMS concentrate provision to achieve low (2 kg/d; L-AMS) or high (6 kg/d; H-AMS) intake. Each period consisted of 28 d with 6 d for dietary transition, 13 d for adaptation, and 9 d of collection. The first 4 d of data and sample collection were used to evaluate behavioral data (milking frequency, feeding behavior, and standing and lying behavior) and ruminal pH. Subsequently, a sampling device removal day was provided, and the last 4 d were used to evaluate ruminal fermentation and apparent total-tract digestibility. All 9 d were used for milk yield measurement, and the 8 d were used for dry matter intake measurement. Cows fed the H-AMS consumed 3.5 kg/d less PMR while consuming 4.2 kg/d more AMS concentrate, but total dry matter intake (PMR+AMS) was not affected by treatments averaging 27.3 kg/d. Although cows fed H-AMS had greater concentrate intake, they also had greater variability for AMS concentrate intake among days (0.85 vs. 0.25 kg/d, respectively). The number of PMR meals and PMR eating behavior were not affected by the PMR or AMS treatments. Feeding H-AMS did not affect milking frequency averaging 3.63 milkings/d, but tended to increase milk yield by 1.25 kg/d relative to L-AMS. Likewise, cows fed the L-FOR tended to have greater milk yield relative to H-FOR (39.3 vs 37.9 kg/d, respectively), but had greater holding area time. Minimum ruminal pH tended to be lower for cows fed L-FOR compared with cows fed H-FOR but was not affected by the AMS concentrate treatment. When fed the L-FOR, feeding the H-AMS increased total short-chain fatty acid concentration in the rumen relative to cows fed L-AMS, whereas the response for H-FOR was not affected by the AMS concentrate. These data suggest that feeding H-AMS may improve milk yield, but also increases the day-to-day variability in AMS concentrate consumption. Feeding a L-FOR PMR may increase milk yield without affecting variability in AMS concentrate consumption; however, it may reduce ruminal pH and increase the time spent in the holding area compared with cows fed a H-FOR PMR.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".