MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604774107 · doi:10.4141/cjas10059

Persistency of milk <i>trans</i>-18:1 isomers and rumenic acid in Holstein cows over a full lactation

2011· article· en· W2604774107 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Riazuddin Mohammed, Reza Khorasani, Laksiri A. Goonewardene, John K. G. Kramer, John P. Kennelly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaElanco Animal HealthTeagasc
KeywordsLactationVaccenic acidAnimal scienceSilageDry matterIce calvingChemistryTotal mixed rationMilk fatForageConjugated linoleic acidFood scienceFatty acidBiologyAgronomyLinoleic acidBiochemistryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mohammed, R., Khorasani, R. G., Goonewardene, L. A., Kramer, J. K. G. and Kennelly, J. J. 2011. Persistency of milk trans-18:1 isomers and rumenic acid in Holstein cows over a full lactation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 147–167. A long-term lactation study was undertaken to determine whether the previously reported short-term persistency in vaccenic acid [VA; trans(t)11-18:1] and rumenic acid (RA) could be maintained. To test this hypothesis, 24 Holstein cows were allotted to two experimental diets (control and test) from 2 wk before calving until they were 270 d in milk (DIM). The test diet was similar to the control diet, but supplemented with sunflower seed (11.2% diet DM), fish oil (0.5%) and monensin (22 mg/kg DM) by replacing an equivalent amount of barley grain. The forage: concentrate ratio was 50:50 (DM basis) with 35% barley silage and 15% alfalfa hay. Milk was sampled every fortnight from the start of lactation until cows were 270 DIM. Data obtained were averaged into three equal periods of 90 d each, representing three stages of lactation (SOL): early-lactation (EL), mid-lactation (ML) and late-lactation (LL). Dry matter intakes were not different between treatments with greater intakes observed during ML than during EL or LL. Milk yield was not different between treatments and decreased with increasing DIM. Milk fat content and yield showed interaction between treatment and SOL with lower values observed for the test diet than control diet during EL and ML. De novo synthesized fatty acids (4:0–15:0), 16:0–16:1 and preformed fatty acids (17:0 and above) showed interaction between treatment and SOL with the former two being greater for control diet than test diet and the latter greater for the test diet than control diet within each SOL. Milk t10-18:1 (% fatty acid methyl esters, FAME) was greater for the test diet compared with control diet (4.38 vs. 1.32) and was greater during ML (3.79) than during EL (2.38) or LL (2.38). Milk VA and RA showed interactions between treatment and SOL with greater values observed for the test diet than the control diet within each SOL. When analyzed by treatment, milk VA was not different across SOL for both diets. Milk RA was not different across SOL for the test diet, but was different for the control diet; it was lower during EL than during ML. Step-wise regression analysis revealed that the variability in milk RA for the control diet (P<0.01; R2=0.97) was determined by VA (70%) and RA/VA (27%); and for the test diet (P<0.01; R2=0.987) by VA (88.7%), RA/VA (5%) and t10-18:1 (3.8%). Desaturase index based on RA/VA showed an interaction between treatment and SOL; it was greater for the control diet than the test diet within each SOL. Overall findings revealed that the differences in milk t10- and VA across SOL reflected possible differences in starch and PUFA intakes, respectively. Differences in milk RA across SOL for the control diet could be attributed to possible differences in mammary desaturase activity based on differences in RA/VA.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207