MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388686982 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2023-0087

The effects of raw and steam-pressure toasted faba bean seeds on the production performance in high-lactating dairy cows

2023· article· en· W4388686982 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
María E. Rodríguez Espinosa, Víctor H. Guevara Oquendo, David A. Christensen, Peiqiang Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural pest management studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Pulse Growers
KeywordsAnimal scienceLactationLatin squareMilk productionDairy cattleFood scienceProductivityBiologyChemistryPregnancyFermentationRumen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introducing new feeds for feeding options requires reliable information to prove beneficial impacts on animal productivity. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effects of 10% inclusion of raw faba bean seeds (R-FBS) and steam-pressure toasted FBS (SP-FBS) on dairy production performance and metabolism. Snowbird FBS were processed by steam-pressure toasting at 121 °C for 0, 7.5, 15, and 30 min. Total mixed rations (TMRs) were prepared using R-FBS (FBS0) and SP-FBS (FBS7.5, FBS15, and FBS30). The TMRs were fed to cows (second and third lactation, 69 ± 15 days in milk, and 720 kg mean BW) for 120 days (November 2020 to February 2021). Data were analyzed using a repeated 4 × 4 Latin square design model with treatment as the fixed effect and cows as the random effect. Feed efficiency was linearly decreased as processing times increased ( P = 0.02) from 1.63 with FBS0 to 1.52 with FBS30. Milk urea nitrogen decreased from 12.18 mg/dL with FBS0 to 11.10 mg/dL with FBS30 (linear P < 0.01). Heating FBS for 7.5 min could be suitable for increasing milk fat and feed efficiency in dairy cows. We believe that high-lactating dairy cows can be fed locally grown faba beans to support their production performance.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAgricultural pest management studiesFrench-language works237,207