Review: Feed intake, milk production and milk composition of dairy cows fed flaxseed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flaxseed contains approximately 55% of total fatty acids of the oil as ?-linolenic acid and is rich in lignans, which are strong antioxidants. Diets rich in omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants are known to have beneficial effects on human health such as a decrease in the incidence of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, and arthritis. Flaxseed could then be an interesting natural feed to consider for changing milk composition. Cyanogenic glycosides (linustatin and neolinustatin) are present in flaxseed, but the concentration of hydrocyanic acid is very low in milk and ruminal fluid of cows fed flaxseed products. In general, feeding up to 15% of the total dry matter as whole flaxseed has a limited effect on dry matter intake. Heat treatments such as micronization and extrusion have no effect on dry matter intake and the effect of formaldehyde treatment on feed intake is unclear. The effects of flaxseed supplementation on milk production of dairy cows in the early stage of lactation have been neutral. Diet supplementation with whole flaxseed has had no effect on milk yield and composition of dairy cows in the mid or late stages of lactation. Physical processing of flaxseed increased milk production although heat treatment did not. Results on the effect of flaxseed processing on overall milk fat concentration have been controversial, but heat and formaldehyde treatments had no effect. Flaxseed supplementation had no effect on milk fat and protein concentrations, and processing of flaxseed had little effect. The extent of change in the concentration of fatty acids in milk is generally proportional to the level of inclusion of flaxseed in the diet. In conclusion, feeding flaxseed does not affect milk production or composition in the large majority of studies, but its long-term effects on health of cows and productivity still need to be determined.Key words: Review, flax, dairy
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".