Effect of subacute ruminal acidosis on milk fat concentration, yield and fatty acid profile of dairy cows receiving soybean oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of ruminal infusion of soybean oil (SBO) with either a moderate- or high-forage diet on fat concentration, yield and composition in milk from dairy cows. Six rumen-fistulated Holstein dairy cows (639+/-51 kg body weight, 140+/-59 days in milk) were used in the study. Cows were randomly assigned to one of two dietary treatments, a high forage:concentrate (HFC, 74:26) or a moderate forage:concentrate (MFC, 56:44) total mixed ration. Cows were fed at 08.00 and 13.00 h and pulse-dosed ruminally at 13.00 h over a 10-min duration with 2% of diet dry matter of SBO. Ruminal pH was recorded continuously. Cows receiving the MFC treatment had lower daily mean ruminal pH and ruminal pH was below 6.0 for a longer duration compared with the HFC treatment (640 vs. 262 min/d, P<0.05). Cows receiving the MFC treatment had a greater reduction (diet by week interaction, P<0.05) in milk fat concentration and yield than cows receiving the HFC treatment (42 vs. 22% and 45 vs. 21%, respectively). Additionally, cows receiving the MFC diet had a greater reduction in milk fat concentration (g/100 g FA) of FA C16 (17 vs. 9%), trans-10 18:1 (159 vs. 21%) and trans-9, cis-11 conjugated linoleic acid (121 vs. 55%) (P<0.05) compared with cows receiving the HFC diet. This study demonstrated that cows fed the MFC diet had lower ruminal pH and showed a greater rate of milk fat depression when infused with SBO.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".