Effect of Blend-Pelleted Products Based on Carinata Meal or Canola Meal in Combination with Lignosulfonate on Ruminal Degradation and Fermentation Characteristics, Intestinal Digestion, and Feed Milk Value When Fed to Dairy Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to investigate the effect of newly developed blend-pelleted products based on carinata meal (BPPCR) or canola meal (BPPCN) in combination with peas and lignosulfonate on ruminal fermentation characteristics, degradation kinetics, intestinal digestion and feed milk values (FMV) when fed to high-producing dairy cows. Three dietary treatments were Control = control diet (common barley-based diet in western Canada); BPPCR = basal diet supplemented with 12.3%DM BPPCR (carinata meal 71.4% + pea 23.8% + lignosulfonate4.8%DM), and BPPCN = basal diet supplemented with 13.3%DM BPPCN (canola meal 71.4% + pea 23.8% + lignosulfonate 4.8%DM). In the whole project, nine mid-lactating Holstein cows (body weight, 679 ± 124 kg; days in milk, 96 ± 22) were used in a triplicated 3 × 3 Latin square study for an animal production performance study. For this fermentation and degradation kinetics study, the experiment was a 3 × 3 Latin square design with three different dietary treatments in three different periods with three available multiparous fistulated Holstein cows. The results showed that the control diet was higher (p < 0.05) in total VFA rumen concentration (138 mmol/L) than BPPCN. There was no dietary effect (p > 0.10) on the concentration of rumen ammonia and ruminal degradation kinetics of dietary nutrients. There was no significant differences (p > 0.10) among diets on the intestinal digestion of nutrients and metabolizable protein. Similarly, the feed milk values (FMV) were not affected (p > 0.10) by diets. In conclusion, the blend-pelleted products based on carinata meal for a new co-product from the bio-fuel processing industry was equal to the pelleted products based on conventional canola meal for high producing dairy cattle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".