Performance of dairy cows fed soybean silage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PERFORMANCE OF DAIRY COWS FED SOYBEAN SILAGE The objective of this research was to determine the feeding values of forage soybean (cv. Kodiak, full pod stage) silage to lactating dairy cows. Two diets with a 50:50 forage:concentrate ratio were formulated to meet nutrient requirements of dairy cows in early lactation. Soybean silage (SS) or a fourth cut alfalfa silage (AS) comprised 72% of the forage in each diet, with corn silage comprising the remaining 28%. Twenty Holsteins cows in early lactation were used in a Switchback design to determine the effects of dietary treatments on milk yield and milk composition. Four lactating cows fitted with ruminal cannulae were used in a Switchback design to determine effects of dietary treatments on ruminal fermentation and total tract nutrient digestibilities. Cows fed SS consumed less (P < 0.05) feed and produced less (P < 0.05) milk than cows fed AS. However, energy-corrected milk and milk efficiency were similar for both dietary treatments. Milk fat percentage and milk urea nitrogen were higher (P < 0.05) in milk of cows fed SS than in milk of cows fed AS. However, milk protein and lactose concentrations were similar for both dietary treatments. Ruminal pH and NH3 N were lower (P < 0.05) in cows fed AS than in cows fed SS. However, total and molar proportions of volatile fatty acids were not influenced by dietary treatments. Total tract digestibility of DM, OM, CP, NDF, and GE were similar for dietary treatments. Results of the present study revealed the potential of forage soybean silage as a forage source of dairy cows. More research is needed to determine the optimum stage of development at harvest to improve the nutritive value of soybean silage for dairy cows.
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) | 0.002 | 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".