Responses of the bovine mammary glands to absorptive supply of single amino acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this review, we discuss the mechanismsof responses of various tissues of the lactating dairy cow, particularly the mammary glands, to perturbations in supply of single amino acids that result in observed milk protein yields. Additions of methionine, lysine, histidine or leucine to the absorptive supply cause arterial concentrations of these amino acids to increase, mammary extractions to drop and mammary blood flow to decrease. Single subtractions of essential amino acids have the opposite effect. Changes in mammary blood flow that have been recorded can be explained as attempts by the mammary glands to restore intracellular ATP balance in the face of altered concentrations of energy metabolites in the general circulation. In a quantitative sense, milk protein yield is relatively insensitive to fluctuations in arterial amino acid concentrations but can be stimulated by any one of a number of amino acids. In this context, it is suggested that the designation of a limiting amino acid is not appropriate to the purpose of predicting milk protein yield. Rather, milk protein synthesis appears to operate at a predetermined rate set by external communications of milk withdrawal rate, physiological state and overall nutritional status. Utilization of amino acids (AA) by splanchnic and peripheral tissues, in coordination with the mammary setpoint, offsets imperfections in the dietary AA supply. How strongly an individual AA influences the mammary setpoint, arterial concentrations of energy metabolites, and mammary AA transport capacity will determine the magnitude of the milk protein yield response when its absorptive supply is changed. Key words: Dairy cows, milk protein, amino acid
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".