MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402541318 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.191

487 Rumen degradation, N-To-Energy Synchronization, and Intestinal digestion Study in dairy cows: Effect of oat varieties and types (feed type vs. milling type)

2024· article· en· W4402541318 on OpenAlexaff
Ganqi Deng, David A. Christensen, H.A. Lardner, Peiqiang Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRumenDigestion (alchemy)Degradation (telecommunications)Food scienceAnimal scienceChemistryAgronomyBiologyChromatographyFermentationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study aimed to determine the impact of four oat varieties and types (feed type vs. milling type) on the rumen degradation kinetics of nutrients, intestinal digestion of nutrients, and N to energy synchronization. Twelve samples [4 varieties (Arborg, Haymaker, Nasser, Summit) × 3 harvested years (2018, 2019, 2020)] were used for in situ rumen incubation analysis, three-step in vitro analysis, and available N to energy synchronization evaluations. The experiment design was RCBD design (oat varieties as a fixed effect and harvested year as a random block effect). Statistical analysis was performed by MIXED procedure model of SAS 9.4, and significance was declared at P < 0.05 and tendency at 0.05 ≤ P < 0.10. Results showed that Haymaker and Arborg oat had higher rate of degradation of degradable fractions (Kd) of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), and starch than that of Nasser oat (P < 0.05). Nasser oat had greatest rumen bypass dry matter (BDM, g/kg DM), and rumen bypass feed starch (BST, g/kg DM) in these four varieties (P < 0.05) while the effective degradability of dry matter (EDDM, g/kg DM), effective degradability of feed crude protein (EDCP, g/kg DM), and effective degradability of feed starch (EDST, g/kg DM) of Nasser oat were least among varieties (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in BDM, EDDM, %BST, and EDST between milling oat and feed oat. For the intestinal nutrient digestibility, Summit oat had greatest intestinal digestibility of rumen bypass dry matter (%dBDM) among four varieties (P < 0.05), and the value of intestinal digestible rumen bypass dry matter (IDBDM, g/kg DM) of Summit was greatest in these varieties, which has greater IDBDM (g/kg DM) content than that of Nasser oat (P < 0.05). Nasser oat also had the least total digestible dry matter (TDDM, g/kg DM) in these varieties (P < 0.05). Summit oat had similar intestinal digestibility of rumen bypass protein (%dBCP) with Haymaker and Nasser oat but had greater %dBCP content than that of Arborg oat (P < 0.05). Nasser oat had greater intestinal digestible rumen bypass protein (%IDBCP, % of CP) in these four varieties (P < 0.05), while its value of total digestible protein (TDCP, g/kg DM) was the smallest and the TDCP content of Nasser oat was less than Haymaker oat (P < 0.05). Summit and Arborg oat had greater total digestible feed starch (TDST) than that of Nasser oat (P < 0.05). Significant differences were found on %dBDM, IDBDM, TDDM, and TDST between the feed type and milling type oat (P < 0.05). Haymaker oat had similar ratio of N to organic matter (OM) of the oat (N/OM) with Nasser oat but had greater N/OM content than that of Arborg and Summit oat (P < 0.05).

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→