MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Direct-Fed Microbial Supplementation on the Performance of Dairy Cattle During the Transition Period

2003· article· en· W2010583195 on OpenAlexaff
J.E. Nocek, W.P. Kautz, J.A.Z. Leedle, E. Block

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceNEFALactationDairy cattlePostpartum periodBiologyEnterococcus faeciumIce calvingInsulinFood scienceBiotechnologyBiochemistryPregnancyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of a direct-fed microbial (DFM) on the prepartum period and the effects on production performance during the postpartum period was investigated using 64 multiparous Holstein cows. Two close-up dry cow diets were fed to two groups of 32 cows each starting 21 d precalving as follows: 1) no DFM and 2) DFM. Post-calving cows were fed a lactation ration with or without DFM supplementation.The direct-fed microbial (DFM) supplement contained 2 × 109 viable yeast cells and 5 × 109 cfu of bacteria (Enterococcus faecium) per cow per day, top dressed in a 90-g supplement [corrected].The DMI during the prepartum period was not affected by DFM supplementation. During the postpartum period, DMI, milk yield, and milk protein content were higher for cows receiving DFM supplementation compared with no DFM. Blood glucose and insulin levels were higher and NEFA levels were lower for cows receiving DFM during the postpartum period. These data suggest that targeted DFM supplementation increased DMI and milk production postpartum. Blood metabolite information would suggest this response was associated with more glucose being made available and less fatty acids being mobilized from lipid stores.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations141
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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