Effects of lauric and myristic acids on ruminal fermentation, production, and milk fatty acid composition in lactating dairy cows
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The objectives of this experiment were to investigate the effects of lauric (LA) and myristic (MA) acids on ruminal fermentation, production, and milk fatty acid (FA) profile in lactating dairy cows and to identify the FA responsible for the methanogen-suppressing effect of coconut oil. The experiment was conducted as a replicated 3×3 Latin square. Six ruminally cannulated cows (95±26.4 DIM) were subjected to the following treatments: 240 g/cow per day each of stearic acid (SA, control), LA, or MA. Experimental periods were 28 d and cows were refaunated between periods. Lauric acid reduced protozoal counts in the rumen by 96%, as well as acetate, total VFA, and microbial N outflow from the rumen, compared with SA and MA. Ruminal methane production was not affected by treatment. Dry matter intake was reduced 35% by LA compared with SA and MA, which resulted in decreased milk yield. Milk fat content also was depressed by LA compared with SA and MA. Treatment had no effect on milk protein content. All treatments increased milk concentration of the respective treatment FA. Concentration of C12:0 was more than doubled by LA, and C14:0 was increased (45%) by MA compared with SA. Concentration of milk FA<C16 was 20% lower for LA than MA. Concentrations of trans 18:1 FA (except trans 12) and CLA isomers were increased by LA compared with SA and MA. Overall, the concentrations of saturated FA in milk fat were reduced, and that of >C16 FA and MUFA were increased, by LA compared with the other treatments. In this study, LA had profound effects on ruminal fermentation, mediated through inhibited microbial populations, and decreased DMI, milk yield, and milk fat content. Despite the significant decrease in protozoal counts, however, LA had no effect on ruminal methane production. Thus, the antimethanogenic effect of coconut oil, observed in related studies, is likely due to total FA application level, the additive effect of LA and MA, or a combination of both. Both LA and MA modified milk FA profile significantly.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».