MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090928901 · doi:10.4141/a01-094

Effect of supplementing glucose in drinking water on the energy and nitrogen status of the transition dairy cow

2002· article· en· W2090928901 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
V.R. Osborne, K.E. Leslie, B.W. McBride

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersDairy Farmers of Ontario
KeywordsNEFAUreaChemistryAnimal scienceDairy cattleDry matterRumenLactationNitrogenNitrogen balanceUrea nitrogenFood scienceFatty acidBiologyBiochemistryFermentationCreatininePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this experiment was to examine the effects of supplementing the drinking water of transition dairy cattle with glucose on the energy and nitrogen status of the cow. Twenty-four multiparous Holstein dairy cows were randomly assigned to one of three treatments for an experimental period that extended from -7 to 21 d of lactation. The treatments included a 0% (control), 1% (10 g L -1 ) and 2% (20 g L -1 ) glucose solution metered into the drinking water of dairy cows. Water and dry matter intake (DMI) were not affected by treatment. Glucose supplementation in the drinking water significantly reduced the rumen fluid ammonia and serum urea concentrations. No differences were seen in serum concentrations of glucose, β-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA), non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), and the energy corrected milk (ECM) yield. The calculated NE balance was not affected by glucose supplementation. The results of this trial demonstrate that glucose supplemented into the drinking water of transition cows improves the nitrogen status of the cow, but does not alter the NE L balance during the periparturient period. Key words: Water supplementation, glucose, transition cow, serum urea

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 score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations23
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207