MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1797285881

A field study on the effects of dietary monensin on milk production and milk composition in dairy cows.

2010· article· en· W1797285881 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Dubuc, Denis DuTremblay, J. Baril, R. Bagg, M. Brodeur, T.F. Duffield, Luc DesCôteaux

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonensinAnimal scienceHerdMilk productionComposition (language)LactationDairy cattleFood scienceMilk fatChemistryBiologyPregnancy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were to quantify the effect of 16 ppm of dietary monensin on milk production and composition of dairy cows, and to investigate factors having a potential impact on this effect. Data were generated from a total of 3577 Holstein dairy cows (47 herds) in Quebec enrolled in a herd-level, randomized clinical trial investigating the effects of monensin supplementation. Milk production and composition data were collected from monthly dairy herd improvement (DHI) testing. Monensin increased milk production by 0.9 kg/cow/d in cows under 150 days in milk (DIM) (P < 0.05). Monensin decreased milk fat percentage by 0.18 percentage points during the whole lactation (P < 0.05). This decreasing effect was larger for component-fed cows (P < 0.05) and for cows being fed low levels of dietary physically effective particles (P < 0.05) when compared respectively to cows fed total mixed ration and cows fed high levels of dietary physically effective particles. The results of this study suggest that monensin influences milk production and milk composition of dairy cows, and that diet composition and feeding system influence those effects.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→