Corrigendum to “Effects of supplementing a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product during the periparturient period on performance of dairy cows fed fresh diets differing in starch content” (J. Dairy Sci. 102:3082–3096)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Table 9, MUN values were incorrect. The correct values are shown in bold below.Table 9Effects of supplementation of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product (SCFP) and carryover effects of starch content of fresh diets (ST) on DMI, BW and BCS changes, milk yield and composition during the post-fresh period (d 24 ± 3 to 44 ± 3 after calving), and the interval from calving to first ovulation postpartum1LS = low-starch fresh diets; HS = high-starch fresh diets; CON = control diet, no SCFP supplementation; SCFP = SCFP-supplemented diet.VariableLSHSSEP-valueCONSCFPCONSCFPSTSCFPST × SCFPDMI, kg/d20.719.920.619.80.470.770.100.98Initial BW,2Measured on d 23 and 24 ± 3 before morning feeding. kg5765785855889.940.330.780.94BW change, kg/d0.480.610.320.320.280.420.820.82Initial BCS2Measured on d 23 and 24 ± 3 before morning feeding.2.792.832.882.830.060.390.950.44BCS change,/21d−0.18−0.13−0.15−0.110.030.480.160.77Yield, kg/d Milk42.641.939.441.21.130.090.590.26 Fat1.561.661.601.630.050.910.210.46 CP1.211.241.181.240.030.640.230.64 Lactose1.981.951.871.960.060.340.530.28 Total solids5.165.275.055.240.130.630.260.78 3.5% FCM43.845.243.444.61.170.690.250.94 Solids-corrected milk39.640.939.340.51.040.770.220.963.5% FCM/DMI2.122.292.142.260.050.91<0.010.61Milk composition Fat, %3.74aMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.4.00abMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.4.05bMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.3.95abMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.0.100.190.410.08 CP, %2.862.952.952.960.040.150.170.27 Lactose, %4.654.634.644.650.020.920.860.63 Total solids, %12.2aMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.12.6bMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.12.6bMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.12.5bMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.0.130.090.260.08 MUN, mg/dL13.7abMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.13.9abMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.14.3aMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.13.1bMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.0.410.760.230.09 SCC, 103 cells/mL37.4aMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.88.3abMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.164bMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.55.5abMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.42.80.280.500.07Apparent dietary NEL3Calculated according to Dann et al. (2000). Mcal/d40.740.839.840.81.160.710.650.68 Mcal/kg of DMI1.982.071.962.070.050.840.050.86NEL balance,4Apparent dietary NEL (Mcal/d) minus NEL required for milk output and maintenance (Mcal/d). The NEL required for milk and maintenance were calculated according to Dann et al. (2000). Mcal/d2.351.361.601.550.740.750.560.59Days to FOP5Interval from calving to first ovulation postpartum (d).23.824.628.122.72.460.630.360.21a,b Means in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05) when an interaction of main treatment effect was observed.1 LS = low-starch fresh diets; HS = high-starch fresh diets; CON = control diet, no SCFP supplementation; SCFP = SCFP-supplemented diet.2 Measured on d 23 and 24 ± 3 before morning feeding.3 Calculated according to Dann et al. (2000).4 Apparent dietary NEL (Mcal/d) minus NEL required for milk output and maintenance (Mcal/d). The NEL required for milk and maintenance were calculated according to Dann et al. (2000).5 Interval from calving to first ovulation postpartum (d). Open table in a new tab The authors regret the error. Effects of supplementing a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product during the periparturient period on performance of dairy cows fed fresh diets differing in starch contentJournal of Dairy ScienceVol. 102Issue 4PreviewThe objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of supplementing a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product (SCFP; NutriTek, Diamond V, Cedar Rapids, IA) during the periparturient period (d −28 ± 3 to 44 ± 3 relative to calving) on dry matter intake (DMI), milk production, apparent total-tract nutrient digestibility, and postpartum ovarian activity of dairy cows fed fresh diets varying in starch content. From d 28 ± 3 before the expected calving date until d 44 ± 3 after calving, 117 Holstein cows were fed diets with SCFP (SCFP; n = 59) or without (control, CON; n = 58). Full-Text PDF Open Access
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,150 | 0,064 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».