MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057914174 · doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3714

Short communication: Feed iodine concentrations on farms with contrasting levels of iodine in milk

2011· article· en· W2057914174 on OpenAlexafffundabout
S.I. Borucki Castro, P. Lacasse, A. Fouquet, Franca Beraldin, A. Robichaud, R. Berthiaume

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaHealth CanadaDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsIodineAnimal scienceChemistryFood scienceEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a previous study, milk iodine concentration from 501 farms across Canada was found to vary considerably and appeared to be influenced by feeding practices. Farms with contrasting levels of milk iodine from a subset of 200 participating farms were used to determine the relationship between milk iodine concentration and the concentration of this mineral in different feeds and complete diets given to lactating dairy cows. The 30 farms with the lowest levels of iodine in milk (low group) and the 30 farms with the highest levels (high group) were selected. Samples of bulk tank milk, all feed ingredients, and water were collected. Additionally, each farmer completed a questionnaire providing information on feeding management. The iodine offered on each of the farms was estimated from the amount of the feed in the diet recommended by the Ration'L software (Valacta, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada) and the iodine concentration in the feed sampled and analyzed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. The dietary concentration of iodine offered daily was 33% lower for the low group compared with the high group; that is, 1.20±0.099 versus 1.81±0.195 mg/kg of dry matter (DM), respectively. Milk iodine concentrations averaged 146±13.9 μg/kg for the low group and 487±44.6 μg/kg for the high group. A linear relationship was found between dietary iodine concentration and milk iodine level, as follows: milk iodine (μg/kg)=145 (±66.9)+113 (±39.4) dietary iodine concentration (mg/kg DM). However, the low R(2) value (0.15) indicates that other factors, such as milking management and the presence of goitrogens, may have affected the concentrations of iodine in milk. Forages supplied approximately 17% of iodine requirements in the average lactating cow diet. Therefore, variations in the iodine content of forages are unlikely to cause iodine overfeeding. In contrast, 27% of the mineral mix samples presented iodine concentrations >100,000 μg/kg of DM (and up to 322,000 μg/kg of DM). More than 85% of the farms tested were feeding iodine levels higher than the dietary iodine recommendations (0.5 mg of iodine/kg of DM). Iodine supplements should be used with caution in lactating cow diets.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207