Comparing steam-flaked and pelleted barley grain in a feed-first guided-flow automated milking system for Holstein cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Provision of a palatable feed in automated milking systems (AMS) is considered an essential motivating factor to encourage voluntary visits to the milking stall. Although the quantity and composition of AMS concentrates have been previously investigated, the form of the concentrate has not been extensively evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of feeding pelleted (PB; 132.9 ± 56 DIM, 47.4 ± 9.51 kg/d milk yield) versus steam-flaked barley (SFB; 133.0 ± 63 DIM, 40.5 ± 8.23 kg/d milk yield) in an AMS on dry matter intake, AMS visits, milk and milk component yield, and partial mixed ration (PMR) feeding behavior. Twenty-nine Holstein cows of varying parities were enrolled in this study. Cows were housed in freestall housing with a feed-first guided-flow barn design; 7 cows were housed in a separate freestall pen to enable individual PMR intake and feeding behavior monitoring. This study was conducted as a 2-way crossover, with two 21-d periods in which each cow received the same basal PMR but was offered 2 kg/d (dry matter basis) of PB or SFB in the AMS. Cows receiving the SFB had fewer voluntary AMS visits (2.71 vs. 2.90 ± 0.051, no./d), tended to have a longer interval between milkings (541.7 vs. 505.8 ± 21.02 min), spent more time in the holding pen before entering the AMS (139.9 vs. 81.2 ± 11.68 min/d), and had lower total box time (19.7 vs. 21.4 ± 0.35 min/d) than cows fed PB. Despite changes in AMS attendance, there were no differences for average milk (44.0 kg/d), fat (1.62 kg/d), and protein (1.47 kg/d) yields or AMS concentrate intake (2.02 kg/d). These behavioral changes indicate that offering SFB as an alternative to PB may reduce motivation for cows to voluntarily enter the AMS.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".