Effects of dietary supplements of folic acid on reproductive performance in ewes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this project was to assess the impact of periconceptional folic acid supplementation on the reproductive performance of prolific and non-prolific ewes, in the estrous and anestrous seasons. Two initial trials took place during the estrous season at two experimental sites where 38 Dorset and 39 half-Finn half-Dorset ewes (site A) as well as 80 Dorset ewes (site C) were divided into two groups receiving either 0 or 210 mg ewe-1 d-1 of folic acid over a period which extended from 21 d premating to 30 d postmating. Three other trials were conducted in the anestrous season where 80 Dorset ewes (site A), 56 half-Romanov ewes (site B) and 78 Dorset ewes (site C) were subjected to the same protocol as the one used in the breeding season. In all the trials, the folic acid supplement increased plasma and red cell folates, but had no effect on fertility, embryonic mortality, or the size or weight of the litter at birth. Folic acid supplementation did not improve the reproductive performance of prolific and non-prolific ewes, either in the estrous season or in the anestrous period. Key words: Ewes, reproduction, vitamins, folic acid, fertility, prolificacy
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".