Feeding processed soybean to mid-lactation Holstein cows: ingestive behaviour and rumen fermentation characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of roasted soybean (RSB), extruded soybean (ESB) and their equal blend (RSB + ESB) compared with soybean meal (SBM) on nutrient intake, feed preference, meal and rumination patterns, feeding and chewing behaviour and rumen fermentation characteristics of mid-lactation dairy cows. Eight Holstein dairy cows were used in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin square design with four 28-d periods. Cows received one of the four following experimental diets: (1) 13.88% of diet dry matter (DM) as SBM; (2) 15.22% of diet DM as RSB, (3) 15.55% of diet DM as ESB and (4) 7.69% RSB plus 7.69% ESB (RSB + ESB). Each experimental period consisted of a 21-d diet adaptation period and a 7-d data collection period. Meal patterns, including meal size and inter-meal interval, were not affected by the experimental diets and thereby DM intake was not different among diets. Sorting index was not different across dietary treatments but intake of particles retained on 1.18-mm sieve and on pan increased and decreased in both SBM and ESB as compared with RSB and RSB + ESM, respectively. Total time spent eating and ruminating and rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations were unaffected by dietary treatments. Feeding processed soybean instead of SBM had minimal effects on sorting behaviour and meal patterns and thereby no changes in feed intake occurred. Finally, RSB and ESB and their equal blend had a similar effect on feed intake and chewing behaviour of mid-lactation Holstein cows.HighlightsFeeding processed soybean products had the minor effect on feed intake and can be considered as alternative feedstuffs when the price is competitive.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".