MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271816003 · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10427

Casein infusion rate influences feed intake differently depending on metabolizable protein balance in dairy cows: A multilevel meta-analysis

2016· review· en· W2271816003 on OpenAlexafffund
R. Martineau, D.R. Ouellet, E. Kebreab, H. Lapierre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaValacta (Canada)
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsCaseinAnimal scienceMeta-analysisBalance (ability)Milk proteinDairy cattleChemistryFood scienceBiologyInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of casein infusion have been investigated extensively in ruminant species. Its effect on responses in dry matter intake (DMI) has been reviewed and indicated no significant effect. The literature reviewed in the current meta-analysis is more extensive and limited to dairy cows fed ad libitum. A total of 51 studies were included in the meta-analysis and data were fitted to a multilevel model adjusting for the correlated nature of some studies. The effect size was the mean difference calculated by subtracting the means for the control from the casein-infused group. Overall, casein infusion [average of 333 g of dry matter (DM)/d; range: 91 to 1,092 g of DM/d] tended to increase responses in DMI by 0.18 kg/d (n=48 studies; 3 outliers). However, an interaction was observed between the casein infusion rate (IR) and the initial metabolizable protein (MP) balance [i.e., supply minus requirements (NRC, 2001)]. When control cows were in negative MP balance (n=27 studies), responses in DMI averaged 0.28 kg/d at mean MP balance (-264 g/d) and casein IR (336 g/d), and a 100g/d increment in the casein IR from its mean increased further responses by 0.14 kg/d (MP balance being constant), compared with cows not infused with casein. In contrast, when control cows were in positive MP balance (n=22 studies; 2 outliers), responses in DMI averaged -0.20 kg/d at mean casein IR (339 g/d), and a 100g/d increment in the casein IR from its mean further decreased responses by 0.33 kg/d, compared with cows not infused with casein. Responses in milk true protein yield at mean casein IR were greater (109 vs. 65 g/d) for cows in negative vs. positive MP balance, respectively, and the influence of the casein IR on responses was significant only for cows in negative MP balance. A 100g/d increment in the casein IR from its mean increased further responses in milk true protein yield by 25 g/d, compared with cows not infused with casein. Responses in blood urea concentration increased in casein studies (+0.59 mM) and the influence of the casein IR was greatest for cows in positive MP balance (0.26 vs. 0.11 mM per 100g/d increment). Responses in DMI were also correlated negatively with responses in blood urea concentration only for cows in positive MP balance. Together, these results suggest an association between satiety and deamination and oxidation of AA supplied in excess of requirements for cows in positive MP balance. Therefore, casein stimulated appetite in cows fed MP-deficient diets possibly via the supply of orexigenic AA or through a pull effect in response to an increased metabolic demand. Conversely, casein induced satiety in cows fed diets supplying MP in excess of requirements. Not precluding other factors involved in satiety (e.g., insulin, gut peptides), casein could have increased the supply of AA (e.g., Ser, Thr, Tyr), which might depress appetite at the brain level or increase the deamination and the oxidation of AA in oversupply in agreement with the hepatic oxidation theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.043
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207