MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999148119 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaa002

Effect of feeding barley or corn silage with dry-rolled barley, corn, or a blend of barley and corn grain on rumen fermentation, total tract digestibility, and nitrogen balance for finishing beef heifers

2020· article· en· W2999148119 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan Johnson, B.D. Sutherland, J. J. McKinnon, Tim A. McAllister, G.B. Penner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersDuPont PioneerMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsSilageDry matterRumenLatin squareAgronomyChemistryFermentationAnimal scienceBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five ruminally cannulated heifers were used in an incomplete 6 × 6 Latin square design to determine the effects of cereal silage (barley vs. corn), cereal grain (barley vs. corn vs. a 50:50 blend of barley and corn), and their interaction (S × G) on dry matter intake, ruminal fermentation, total tract digestibility, nitrogen balance, and in situ degradation. Corn silage (CS) or barley silage (BS) was included at 8% of dietary dry matter (DM). Within each silage source, diets contained (DM basis) either dry-rolled barley (BG; 86%), dry-rolled corn (CG; 85%), or an equal blend of barley and corn (BLEND; 85%). Periods were 25 d, with 5 d of dietary transition, 13 d of dietary adaptation, and 7 d of data and sample collection. Samples collected included feed and refusals, total urine and feces, and ruminal fluid. All data were analyzed using the Mixed model of SAS with the fixed effects of silage, grain, and the S × G. Dry matter intake (P ≥ 0.19) and mean ruminal pH (P ≥ 0.096) were not affected by the silage, grain, or S × G. Total short-chain fatty acid concentrations were greater for BLEND than BG or CG (grain, P = 0.003) and for CS (silage, P = 0.009) relative to BS. The molar proportion of acetate was greater for BS-BG and BS-CG (S × G, P < 0.001), while molar proportion of propionate was greater for CS-BG (S × G, P < 0.001) relative to other silage and grain source combinations. Rumen ammonia-N concentration was greater for CG than BG, or BLEND (grain, P < 0.001), and greater for CS compared to BS (silage, P = 0.023). Apparent total tract digestibility of DM, organic matter, neutral detergent fiber, starch, and gross energy were greatest for BG (grain, P ≤ 0.035). Digestible energy content (Mcal/kg) was greater for BG (grain, P = 0.029) than CG and BLEND. Total nitrogen retention (g/d and % of intake) was greatest for CS-BG (S × G, P ≤ 0.033) relative to all other treatments. In situ degradation rates of DM, crude protein, and starch were greater for BG than CG (P ≤ 0.004). The potentially degradable fraction of DM, crude protein, and starch was greater for CG (P ≤ 0.031), while the undegradable fraction was greater for BG (P ≤ 0.046). For silage sources, CS had greater 24 h in situ DM digestibility (P = 0.009) and starch digestibility (24, 48, and 72 h incubations, P ≤ 0.034) relative to BS. Results suggest that while feeding a combination of CS and BG promotes propionate production and greater N retention; few other additive effects were observed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207