MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402541316 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.664

PSVIII-8 The impact of foliar fungicide application on barley silage fermentation characteristics and performance of lactating dairy cows

2024· article· en· W4402541316 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christina S James, G.B. Penner, Aaron D. Beattie, David A. Christensen, T. Mutsvangwa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilageFungicideAgronomyFermentationDairy cattleBiologyAnimal scienceFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Forages are an important component in dairy cow diets and barley silage is the primary forage source in western Canada and parts of the USA. Foliar fungal diseases can infect barley, thereby causing leaf damage and a loss of yield and quality. The objectives were to determine the effects of foliar fungicide application on two barley forage varieties, one resistant (CDC Fraser) and the other susceptible (Claymore) to foliar fungal disease, on silage ensiling characteristics and feed intake, milk production and composition, ruminal pH, and nitrogen (N) balance in dairy cows. Multiparous Holstein cows [n = 12; mean (ays in milk (DIM) = 40 ± 17; mean body weight (BW) = 720 ± 26 kg] at the start of the experiment) were used in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin square design with a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement of dietary treatments. Experimental periods were 25 d, with 18 d of dietary adaptation and 7 d of sample and data collection. Test diets were: 1) fungicide-treated Claymore silage (CF); 2) untreated Claymore silage (CNF); 3) fungicide-treated CDC Fraser silage (FF); and 4) untreated CDC Fraser silage (FNF) as the major source of forage. Forage yields were 1.86 (FNF), 1.46 (CNF), 1.17 (FF), and 1.35 (CF) t dry matter (DM)/ha, likely reflective of the low rainfall during the growing season. Experimental silages were similar in crude protein (mean = 14.0%; DM basis), ammonia (mean = 1.95%), and total volatile fatty acid (mean = 9.25%) concentrations. CDC Fraser silage had greater lactic acid concentration (P < 0.001) but decreased pH (P = 0.01) and acetic acid concentration (P < 0.01) than Claymore silage. Silage aNDF contents (DM %) were similar in FF and FNF, but greater in CNF than CF (interaction; P < 0.05). Without fungicide application, barley variety had no effect on silage starch content (DM %), whereas with fungicide application, Claymore had a greater silage starch content than CDC Fraser (interaction; P < 0.05). Dry matter intake, milk yield, and milk composition were unaffected by diet (P > 0.05). Total tract nutrient digestibility was unaffected by diet (P > 0.05). Intake of N, and urinary and fecal N excretion, total N excretion, milk N, and apparent N balance (expressed as g/d or % of N intake) were unaffected by diet (P > 0.05). Ruminal short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) concentrations and pH were unaffected by diet (P > 0.05); however, total SCFA concentration was similar in CF and CNF but was greater in FNF than FF (interaction; P < 0.05). Valerate concentration was similar in FF and FNF but greater in CF than CNF (interaction; P < 0.05). Foliar fungicide application on barley, regardless of variety susceptibility to fungal diseases, did not negatively affect silage quality or dairy cow 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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