0726 Effect of increasing milk feeding frequency of an elevated plane of nutrition on glucose and insulin kinetics in male Holstein calves both before and after weaning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate how feeding elevated levels of milk replacer before weaning, at different feeding frequencies, could influence glucose and insulin kinetics both before and after weaning. Ten male Holstein calves (42.2 kg ± 1.8 birth weight) were randomly assigned to 2 treatments whereby calves were offered 8 L of milk replacer (150 g/L; 26% CP and 18% CF) per day in two (2x) or four feedings (4x) via an automated feeding system. Calves were gradually stepped down by 1 L/d from wk 7 until weaning on wk 8 (0 L). Postprandial blood samples were collected on wk 4 and 7 via jugular catheters during the 1000-h meal every 30 min up to 240 min after feeding. A glucose tolerance test was conducted on wk 4, 7, and 10 via the jugular catheter the day following the postprandial measurements, with 540 mg glucose/kg BW0.75 infused after a 12-h feed restriction. Statistics were determined using SAS PROC MIXED and any data not normally distributed was logarithmically transformed. Postprandial glucose area under the curve over 240 min (AUC240) tended (P = 0.06) to differ between treatments overall (2x: 383.51 ± 60.08 mmol/L; 4x: 246.68 ± 64.2 mmol/L) but both treatments were able to adequately control glycemia. Postprandial insulin AUC240 differed (P = 0.01) by treatment with 2x calves (13,808 ± 3,136 μU/mL) having higher insulin concentrations compared with 4x calves (4,716 ± 3,250 μU/mL), and both treatments demonstrated a decrease in insulin AUC240 (P < 0.01) with increasing age (wk 4: 14,287 ± 2,818 μU/mL; wk 7: 4,237 ± 2,686 μU/mL), which can most likely be attributed to meal size relative to calf BW. Additionally, there was no effect observed for any of the measurements (time to maximum concentration, maximum concentration, AUC240, basal concentration, or change in concentration) for the glucose tolerance test between treatments or across ages, suggesting that feeding frequency in this study had no effect on insulin sensitivity. These findings suggest that feeding 8 L/d at a frequency of 2x or 4x are both viable feeding methods that do not compromise insulin sensitivity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".