The interaction of monensin and flaxseed hulls on ruminal and milk concentration of the mammalian lignan enterolactone in late-lactating dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four ruminally fistulated multiparous Holstein cows were assigned to a 4x4 Latin square design with a 2x2 factorial arrangement of treatments to study the effects of dietary supplementation of monensin and flaxseed hulls on ruminal and milk concentration of the mammalian lignan enterolactone (EL) and ruminal and faecal activity of beta-glucuronidase. The hypothesis was that monensin supplementation has no effect on the incorporation of EL into milk when cows are fed flaxseed hulls. Treatments were: 1) control, neither flaxseed hulls nor monensin (CO); 2) diet containing (dry matter basis) 20% flaxseed hulls (FH); 3) diet with monensin (16 mg/kg of dry matter; MO); 4) diet containing 20% (dry matter basis) flaxseed hulls and 16 mg/kg monensin (HM). Intake of dry matter was higher for CO and MO than for FH and HM and monensin had no effect. Milk production decreased in cows fed flaxseed hulls while monensin had no effect. Production of 4% fat-corrected milk and concentrations of milk fat, lactose, urea N, and total solids were similar among treatments. Although there was a decrease in ruminal activity of beta-glucuronidase when feeding flaxseed hulls, the metabolism of plant into mammalian lignans may be increased as shown by enhanced concentration of EL in the rumen and milk. Supplementation with flaxseed hulls then may contribute to favourably change milk composition for better human health by enhancing mammalian lignan EL concentration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".