Short Communication: Postruminal Infusion of Conjugated Linoleic Acids Negatively Impacts Milk Synthesis in Holstein Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In view of the potential of rumen-protected conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) as a means to increase the CLA content of bovine milk, a study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of synthetic CLA on milk production and composition. Four Holstein cows received abomasal infusion of: 1) control, no lipid infusion, 2) 150 g/d of synthetic CLA, 31.7% cis-9, trans-11; 30.4% trans-10, cis-12, 3) 150 g/d of safflower oil, and 4) 150 g/d of tallow. Infusion was carried out for 20 to 22 h/d for 11-d periods in a 4 x 4 Latin square design. The milk fat concentration of cis-9, trans-11 and trans-10, cis-12 isomers of CLA was significantly increased with infusion of CLA. However, CLA infusion had other unexpected effects on milk production and composition. Milk yield dropped significantly during the period of CLA infusion. Furthermore, as well as the typical depression in milk fat reported with trans-10 isomers of CLA, other negative effects specific to CLA infusion were observed including a drop in lactose concentration and yield, a drop in protein yield, and an elevated somatic cell count. The important difference between synthetically produced CLA and CLA produced naturally in the cow is the much higher proportion of trans-10 isomers of CLA in the former. The results of this study suggest that the extent of enrichment possible for trans-10 isomers of CLA, and hence the usefulness of synthetic CLA for this purpose, may be limited because of unacceptable effects on milk yield and composition.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".