Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
Maize was harvested with a maize forager set at a chopping length of 10 mm.
The results suggest that MS with a theoretical chopping length of 9 mm at harvest can be used as sole roughage source in beef cattle diets, without adverse effects on DMI, ADG, feeding behavior and health status of the animals.
Similar(58)
Dietary treatments differed in maturity stage (early vs. late) and chop length (fine vs. coarse) of WPMS.
Preplanned orthogonal contrasts were used to evaluate effects of processing (19 processed vs. 19 mm unprocessed) and chop length (13 vs. 19 mm unprocessed and 19 vs. 32 mm processed).
The aims of this study were to determine the extent of starch digestion in the different digestive compartments in cows fed high whole-plant maize silage (WPMS) diets, and to evaluate the effect of maturity and chop length of WPMS on starch digestion, ruminal fermentation and milk production.
Although differences in site of starch digestion between treatments were not statistically significant, this study suggested that the site and extent of starch digestion could be modulated by controlling maturity stage and chop length of WPMS, without affecting the energy value of the diet.
The objectives of this experiment were to study the effects of corn hybrid and chop length of whole-plant corn silage (WPCS) on intake, and to quantify ruminal digestive processes that could help to identify factors limiting dry matter intake (DMI).
Reducing the alfalfa chop length did not affect feed intake, whereas reducing the oat silage chop length increased DM intake from to 19.4 to 21.2 kg/d.
Reducing the chop lengths of alfalfa silage and oat silage chop length did not affect milk production, rumen fermentation, feeding behavior, meal patterns, and blood metabolites.
Masticate mean particle length was unaffected by chop length in unprocessed and processed corn silage treatments.
With lactating cows, DMI and milk yield varied with corn hybrids but not with chop length.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com