MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976590335 · doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1613

Grazing cows are more efficient than zero-grazed and grass silage-fed cows in milk rumenic acid production

2009· article· en· W1976590335 on OpenAlexafffund
Riazuddin Mohammed, Catherine Stanton, J.J. Kennelly, J. K. G. Kramer, John F. Mee, David R. Glimm, M. O’Donovan, John J. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDry matterSilageRumenGrazingVaccenic acidConjugated linoleic acidLatin squareAnimal scienceBiologyLactationForageLinoleic acidChemistryFatty acidFood scienceAgronomyFermentationBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six rumen-cannulated Holstein cows in early lactation were assigned to 3 treatments: grazing (G), zero-grazing (ZG), and grass silage (GS) harvested from the same perennial rye grass sward in a 3 x 3 Latin square design with three 21-d periods. The objectives of this study were to investigate the underlying mechanisms for the reported elevation in milk rumenic acid (RA) concentration associated with G compared with ZG and GS, and to identify the important variables contributing to the milk RA response. Grazing animals were offered 20 kg of dry matter/cow per day; indoor animals were offered ad libitum grass or silage. A concentrate at a rate of 3 kg/d was also offered to all cows. Rumen, plasma, and milk samples were collected in the third week of each period. Data were analyzed by the MIXED procedure of SAS. Dry matter intakes were less for GS with no difference between G and ZG. Milk yield was greater for G than for ZG or GS. Milk fat and protein contents were less for GS with no difference between G and ZG. The combined intake (g/d) of linoleic and linolenic (18:3n-3) acids was different across the treatments (G: 433; ZG: 327; and GS: 164). Rumen pH was less for G with no difference between ZG and GS. Concentrations of volatile fatty acids and ammonia nitrogen in rumens were not different across the treatments. Wet rumen fill was less for G with no difference between ZG and GS. Vaccenic acid concentrations were different across the treatments in rumen (G: 12.30%, ZG: 9.31%, and GS: 4.21%); plasma (G: 2.18%, ZG: 1.47%, and GS: 0.66%) and milk (G: 4.73%, ZG: 3.49%, and GS: 0.99%). Milk RA concentrations were greater for G (2.07%) than for ZG (1.38%) and GS (0.54%). Milk desaturase index based on the ratio cis-9-14:1/14:0 was not different across the treatments. Milk RA yield per 100 g of linoleic acid and linolenic acid intake (efficiency) was 2.23, 1.50, and 0.62 g in G, ZG, and GS, respectively, suggesting that G cows were more efficient than ZG and GS cows in milk RA production. Stepwise regression analysis of a group of variables revealed that plasma vaccenic acid accounted for 95% of the variation in milk RA production. Milk desaturase index did not enter into the model. Overall findings suggest that substrate intake influenced milk RA production but it was not the only factor involved. There were differences in efficiency of milk RA production, which appears to depend on the factors regulating ruminal vaccenic acid production and its supply to the mammary tissue.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations66
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207