Effects of Intramuscular Injections of Vitamin B12 on Lactation Performance of Dairy Cows Fed Dietary Supplements of Folic Acid and Rumen-Protected Methionine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experiment was undertaken to determine the effects of i.m. injections of vitamin B(12) on lactational performance of primiparous dairy cows fed dietary supplements of folic acid and rumen-protected methionine from 4 to 18 wk of lactation. Fourteen primiparous Holstein cows were assigned to 7 blocks of 2 cows each, according to milk production during the third week of lactation. All cows were fed a basal diet supplemented daily with rumen-protected methionine (18 g of supplement, to bring the estimated supply of methionine to 2.2% of metabolizable protein) plus folic acid (4 mg per kg of BW). Within each block, the cows received a weekly i.m. injection (2 mL) of saline or 10 mg of vitamin B(12). Milk production was recorded daily. Milk and blood were sampled every 2 wk. Supplementary vitamin B(12) increased energy-corrected milk from 25.8 to 29.0 (SE 1.6) kg/d, as well as milk yields of solids [3.52 to 3.90 (SE 0.22) kg/d], fat [0.87 to 1.01 (SE 0.06) kg/d], and lactose [1.48 to 1.64 (SE 0.11) kg/d]. Supplementation also increased concentrations and amounts of vitamin B(12) secreted in milk but had no significant effect on dry matter intake and concentrations and amounts of folates in milk. Packed cell volume, blood hemoglobin, and serum vitamin B(12) were increased by supplementary vitamin B(12), whereas serum methylmalonic acid was decreased. Serum concentrations of sulfur amino acids were unchanged by treatment. These findings support the hypothesis that, in early lactation, supply of vitamin B(12) was not optimal and limited the lactation performance of the 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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".