200 Effects of grain processing and undegradable fiber on rumen pH and fermentation of cattle fed high grain diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of processing index (PI, weight after processing/weight before processing × 100) of barley grain and dietary undegradable fiber (uNDF, 240 h of incubation in rumen) concentration on DM intake (DMI), ruminal pH and fermentation characteristics of finishing beef cattle. Six ruminally cannulated beef heifers (BW, 715 ± 29 kg) were used in a 6 × 6 Latin square design with 3 PI (65, 75 and 85%; fine, medium, coarse, respectively) × 2 uNDF concentrations (low and high; 4.6 vs. 5.6% of DM) factorial arrangement. Heifers were fed ad libitum a diet consisting of 10% barley silage (low uNDF), or 5% silage and 5% straw (high uNDF), 87% dry-rolled barley, and 3% vitamin and mineral supplements. An interaction of PI × uNDF was observed (P < 0.01) for DMI, but not for mean or duration of rumen pH < 5.8 or < 5.6 over a 24-h period. The DMI (kg/d) was greater (P < 0.05) for high (12.7) versus low (12.1) uNDF diets with 85% PI, with no difference in DMI (average, 12.1) between low and high uNDF diets with 65 or 75% PI. The duration of pH < 5.8 (14.6 versus 13.3 h) and pH < 5.6 (10.8 versus 8.6 h) reduced (P < 0.05) for high versus low uNDF diets. The PI did not affect total volatile fatty acid (tVFA) concentration or molar proportions of individual VFA, but the tVFA was less (172 and 162 mM; P < 0.01) and acetate proportion was greater (46.0 and 48.2%; P < 0.01) with high versus low uNDF. These results indicate that increasing dietary uNDF concentration is an effective strategy to improve ruminal pH status in finishing cattle, regardless of extent of grain processing, whereas minimizing the extent of grain processing did not reduce the risk of rumen acidosis.
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 | 0.001 | 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".