MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2551427619 · doi:10.2527/jam2016-1321

1321 Comparison of flax oil with varying lipid supplements in dairy ration: A meta-analysis

2016· article· en· W2551427619 on OpenAlexaff
M. Leduc, M.P. Létourneau Montminy, R. Gervais, P.Y. Chouinard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceChemistryComposition (language)Milk fatAnimal scienceBiologyLinseed oil

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feeding flax oil, a source of trienoic fatty acids (TRI-FA), to dairy cows contributes to improve fertility, reduce methane emissions and increase milk fat content of n-3 FA. However, studies on the effect of flax TRI-FA on milk production and composition have yielded contradictory results. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of flax TRI-FA on lactation performance when compared with different sources of dietary lipids in which dienoic (DI), monoenoic (MONO), or saturated (SAT) FA were predominant. Three databases including 30, 20, and 15 studies, published between 1998 and 2015, were used for the comparisons of flax TRI-FA vs. DI-FA, vs. MONO-FA, and vs. SAT-FA supplements, respectively. For each database, dairy cow performance was adjusted with a linear mixed model where lipid source and supplemental lipid concentration were the independent variables, and study effect was included as a random variable. Concentrations of supplemental lipids, determined by ether extraction, varied from 0.7 to 6.0% (DM basis) for flax TRI-FA (3 databases combined), 0.5 to 6.6% for DI-FA, 0.9 to 5.9% for MONO-FA, and 1.0 to 4.1% for SAT-FA supplements. The interactions between lipid sources and their dietary concentrations were never significant and were removed from the models. Feeding flax TRI-FA tended to increase DMI (0.38 kg/d; P = 0.07) compared with SAT-FA, but no difference was observed with DI-FA or MONO-FA supplements. Actual, fat corrected, and energy corrected milk yields were not different between flax TRI-FA and the lipid categories evaluated. Feed efficiency of cows receiving flax TRI-FA was lower (−0.03 kg milk/kg DMI) compared with SAT-FA (P = 0.03), whereas no difference was observed with DI-FA and MONO-FA supplements. Milk fat and protein concentrations and yields were not different between flax TRI-FA and the other three lipid categories. Feeding flax TRI-FA increased lactose concentrations compared with DI-FA and SAT-FA supplements by 0.02 (P = 0.03) and 0.03 (P = 0.03) percentage unit, respectively. Despite minor effects on lactose, there was no difference between flax TRI-FA and other dietary unsaturated lipids on animal performance. Nevertheless, as a result of an increase in DMI, efficiency of milk production was reduced by feeding flax TRI-FA compared with SAT-FA supplements.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.047
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicFatty Acid Research and Health→French-language works237,207→