The effect of jugular or abomasal infusion of amino acids on milk yield in lactatingcows fed a protein deficient diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of first-pass splanchnic metabolism was investigated by comparing the response of 5 lactating cows to an infusion of an amino acid mixture into the abomasum or a jugular vein over 5 d according to a complete block design.The basal diet and the amino acid infusion provided 71% and 14% of crude protein requirements, respectively.The jugular infusion increased (P = 0.01) milk yield by 0.80 kg in comparison to the abomasal infusion, but milk protein yield was not altered.The jugular infusion tended to increase (P = 0.06) the arterial concentration of total essential amino acids by 11% relatively to the abomasal infusion.Mammary plasma flow and net fluxes of amino acids and glucose were not affected by the infusion sites.Variations in essential amino acid concentrations suggest that splanchnic metabolism alters peripheral delivery of amino acids but the recirculation of amino acids within the animal decreased the impact of the first-pass splanchnic metabolism on lactational performances. amino acid / cow / infusion / milk yield / proteinRésumé -Effet d'une perfusion jugulaire ou abomasale d'acides aminés sur la production laitière de vaches en lactation alimentées avec une ration déficiente en protéine.L'influence du premier passage des acides aminés dans le tissu splanchnique a été étudiée en comparant la réponse de 5 vaches laitières à des perfusions abomasale ou jugulaire administrées durant 5 j selon un dispositif en blocs complets.La ration de base et la perfusion d'acides aminés fournissaient 71 % et 14 % des besoins en protéine brute, respectivement.La perfusion jugulaire a augmenté (P = 0,01) la
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".