CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 442Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAgricultural Engineering and MechanizationAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

Effect of quantity, quality and length of alfalfa hay on selective consumption by dairy cows

Open access
Leonardi, C., Armentano, L.E.·2003·Journal of Dairy Science
DOI 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(03)73634-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Twenty-four lactating Holstein cows were used in a replicated 6 x 6 Latin square design. Experimental periods were 6 or 7 d. Cows were housed in tie-stalls, and diets were fed ad libitum twice daily at 1100 and 1600 h. Diets contained 60% concentrate and either 40% alfalfa hay or 20% alfalfa hay and 20% alfalfa silage (dry matter basis). The effect of quantity, quality, and length of hay on sorting behavior was determined. Treatments consisted of 20% lower or higher quality long alfalfa hay, 20% lower or higher quality chopped alfalfa hay, and 40% lower or higher quality chopped alfalfa hay. Variation of sorting among cows was also determined. Particle size distribution of samples of as-fed total mixed rations and orts were determined using the Wisconsin particle size separator. Screens have square holes with diagonals of 26.9, 18, 8.98, 5.61, and 1.65 mm (screens Y1 to Y5, respectively). Sorting was calculated as the actual intake of each fraction expressed as a percentage ofthe predicted intake. Increasing the proportion of dry hay increased sorting. Quality of alfalfa hays that were offered did not affect sorting activity. Feeding long alfalfa hay increased selective consumption of fine particles. However, feeding long alfalfa hay also increased intake of longer particles because a higher percentage of long particles was offered. Across treatments, animals consistently sorted against longer particles in favor of finer particles. In particular, intake of Y1 as a percentage of the predicted intake was the most variable. Average Y1 intake, across the six treatments for each cow, was between 60 and 70% of predicted intake for four cows, 71 to 80% for 11 cows, 81 to 90% for five cows, 91 to 100% for two cows, and 101 to 110% for two cows. On one diet a cow failed to consume any of the Y1 portion of the total mixed ration. This variation among animals in sorting of very long feed particles may have practical significance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(03)73634-0

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Greater physically effective NDF was previously reported to increase total mixed ration sorting by dairy cattle.

    “When feeding WPCS harvested at longer TLOC settings, it is important to monitor for selective consumption of particles because greater peNDF was previously reported to increase TMR sorting (Leonardi and Armentano, 2003) by dairy cattle.”

    From Silage review: Recent advances and future technologies for whole-plant and fractionated corn silage harvesting (2018) · cites this paper as Leonardi and Armentano, 2003

    The Results and Conclusions report greater TMR sorting with 40% than with 20% chopped alfalfa hay, and cows sorted against the longest particles. The paper does not establish that greater physically effective NDF caused the increase: the Results say the effect could reflect either the particle-size distribution or the lower moisture content of the higher-hay diet. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]10. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Release 7th Edition, 1998. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Leonardi, C., & Armentano, L. E.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Armentano, L.E.
ORCID
Armentano, L.E.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Publisher
American Dairy Science Association
Published
2003-02
Volume
86
Issue
2
Pages
557-564
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(03)73634-0
OpenAlex
W1990814160
Semantic Scholar
933c460a9cb370432b2fb95308e5c2f6b3413b71
Cited by
431
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 13
FWCI
15.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
USDA
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
selective feeding, sorting behavior, alfalfa hay, dairy cattle, particle size distribution, hay quality, alfalfa silage, intake, total mixed ration, Holstein cows
MeSH terms
Medicago sativa, Animals, Cattle, Diet, Eating, Female, Food Handling, Food Preferences, Lactation, Parity, Particle Size, Silage, Time Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review