An intravenous replenishment of salivary components decrease water intake and increases feed intake in freely drinking large-type goats fed on dry forage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research utilized two treatments to investigate if feed intake is reduced by changes in humoral factors induced by dry forage feeding in large-type goats given free access to water. In the control treatment (NI), a solution was not infused. The artificial parotid saliva i.v. infusion (ASI) treatment consisted of an i.v. infusion of artificial parotid saliva in order to replenish NaHCO3 and fluids lost from the blood to the rumen due to increased saliva secretion volume during initial stages of dry forage feeding. The ASI treatment significantly mitigated the decreases in circulating plasma volume caused by saliva secretion. Thirst was lower in the ASI-treated group, as indicated by the lower water intake (NI, 3894 mL 2 h-1; ASI, 3100 mL 2 h-1). Decreases with time in dry forage intake were significantly reduced by the ASI treatment (2134g 2 h-1) compared with the NI control (1756 g 2 h-1). These results indicate that under free drinking conditions, dry forage intake of large-type goats may likely be suppressed by the decrease in plasma volume and increase in water intake following saliva secretion during the initial stages of feeding. Key words: Dry forage intake, water intake, large-type goat
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".