MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089484836 · doi:10.15232/aas.2020-01983

Effects of winter-feeding system on beef cow performance, ruminal fermentation, and system costs

2020· article· en· W3089484836 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. Jose, Kathy Larson, J. J. McKinnon, G.B. Penner, Daalkhaijav Damiran, H.A. Lardner

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Animal Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForageLatin squareAnimal scienceHayGrazingBeef cattleBiologyAgronomyHordeum vulgareFermentationRumenPoaceaeFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective was to evaluate the effects of a winter-feeding system on (study 1) forage biomass and quality, DMI, beef cow performance, system costs, and (study 2) ruminal fermentation. In study 1, over 3 yr, 60 dry, pregnant Angus cows were stratified by BW (658.2 ± 15 kg) and randomly allocated to 1 of 3 replicated (n = 2) winter-feeding systems. Winter-feeding systems included (i) grazing standing whole-plant corn (STCOR; Zea mays L. ‘DKC 26-25’; 10.0% CP, 67.6% TDN); (ii) grazing swathed whole-plant barley (SWBAR; Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Ranger’; 11.5% CP, 60.5% TDN); and (iii) drylot feeding barley hay (DLHAY; Ranger; 10.3% CP, 54.2% TDN). In study 2 (yr 1 and yr 2), 9 ruminally cannulated beef heifers (529 ± 39 kg) cycled through the 3 winter systems in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design, with 21-d periods to evaluate the effects of system and day of forage allocation on ruminal fermentation. Forage utilization was greatest (P = 0.01) for the DLHAY (84.4 ± 5.9%), intermediate for SWBAR (63.9 ± 2.5%), and least for STCOR (51.1 ± 4.4%) system. Winter-feeding system did not differ (P = 0.21) for initial BW (665 ± 17 kg), final BW (679 ± 25 kg), initial (4.2 ± 0.94 mm) and final rib fat thickness (4.9 ± 0.86 mm), and BCS (P = 0.36; final BCS = 2.8 ± 0.10; BCS change = 0.07 ± 0.14; 5-point scale). Mean ruminal pH was greatest (P = 0.02) for DLHAY (6.59) compared with SWBAR and STCOR forages (6.42 and 6.44, respectively). The area (pH × min/d) and duration that pH was <5.8 (min/d) was greater (P = 0.02) for SWBAR (50.8 and 231.6, respectively) compared with DLHAY (4.9 and 53.6, respectively) but similar to STCOR forage (52 and 129.3, respectively). Ruminal pH increased (P = 0.01) from d 1 to 3 of forage allocation, and duration and area when pH was below 5.8 decreased (P = 0.03) from d 1 to 3 of forage allocation. These results suggest that grazing either standing corn or swathed barley during winter can reduce (P = 0.01) costs by 25 and 36%, respectively, with no negative effects on cow performance and minimal effects on ruminal fermentation compared with feeding cows barley hay in drylot.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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