MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003717330 · doi:10.4141/cjas08115

Colostrum and milk fatty acids of dairy cows as influenced by extruded linseed supplementation during the transition period

2009· article· en· W2003717330 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D.E. Santschi, Florian Leiber, A.-K. M. Witschi, Michael Kreuzer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgroscope
KeywordsColostrumLactationIce calvingLinseed oilAnimal scienceFatty acidBiologyFood sciencePregnancyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of precalving fat sources on fatty acid (FA) profile of colostrum and milk and on metabolic parameters in early lactation were determined. Two fat supplements (target: 21% fat, DM basis) fed at 1.8 kg DM d -1 were compared: Control (C; containing fractionated palm oil rich in 16:0) and Linseed (L; containing extruded linseed, rich in 18:3n-3). Sixteen dry Holstein (n = 7) and Brown Swiss (n = 9) cows were assigned to four groups receiving the supplements from 5 wk pre- to 4 wk post-calving in different sequences: CC, CL, LC and LL. Treatments did not affect metabolic parameters, milk yield or composition. Linseed supplementation increased proportions of 18:0, 18:1, 18:2 and 18:3 in colostrum and milk (except 18:1 for colostrum). The highest n-3 FA proportion was observed in milk of LL cows. For most 16 and 18 FA, a fast response occurred within the first week of lactation for cows that switched treatments over calving. Carry-over to milk of 18:3 and its biohydrogenation products from linseed fed precalving was low. Pre-calving feeding strategies to favour incorporation of these FA into early lactation milk were not successful, but the reasons for this failure remain unclear.Key words: Linseed, omega-3 fatty acids, transition period, milk, colostrum, dairy cows

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207