MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2789810497 · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13481

The effect of prepartum feeding and lying space on metabolic health and immune function

2018· article· en· W2789810497 on OpenAlexafffund
Cynthia Miltenburg, T.F. Duffield, Dorothee Bienzle, Elizabeth L. Scholtz, S.J. LeBlanc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsIce calvingAnimal scienceHaptoglobinColostrumBiologyRetained placentaKetosisLiver functionInternal medicineLactationEndocrinologyDiabetes mellitusMedicinePregnancyAntibodyImmunologyFetusPlacenta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The determinants of metabolic and reproductive health disorders in the peripartum period and the degree to which feeding and lying space and management can influence health are only partially understood. The objective of this randomized controlled study was to determine whether providing noncompetitive feeding and lying access in the close-up dry period improves health and immune function. Forty-eight Holstein cows of all parities were randomly assigned to a treatment group of 6 to 10 cows in 1 pen with either 80% cows to stalls and 90 cm of feeding space per cow (understocked) or 120% stocking density and 45 cm of feeding space per cow (overstocked) for 3 wk before expected calving. All cows wore electronic data loggers to monitor daily standing and lying time. Video recordings representing d 7 to 9 after group formation were reviewed, and a competition index (C_Ind) was calculated for each cow by dividing the number of times a cow displaced another as an actor by its total number of actor and reactor displacements. Cows were categorized as high success (C_Ind ≥0.6), moderate success (0.4 ≤ C_Ind <0.6), or low success (C_Ind <0.4). Weekly blood samples measured nonesterified fatty acids, β-hydroxybutyrate, calcium, glucose, albumin, aspartate aminotransferase, bilirubin, haptoglobin, insulin, and insulin-like growth factor-1 from 3 wk before to 5 wk after calving. Measures of innate immune function (neutrophil phagocytosis and oxidative burst) were assessed at -2, -1, 1, 2, 3, and 5 wk relative to calving. Liver biopsies were collected at wk 1 and 3. Cows in the understocked group spent significantly more time per day lying; the back-transformed least squares means and 95% confidence interval were 14.8 h (13.9-15.6) versus 12.8 h (12.0-13.7). Controlling for parity, there was no difference between treatments in β-hydroxybutyrate, nonesterified fatty acids, glucose, insulin, insulin-like growth factor 1, aspartate aminotransferase, bilirubin, or haptoglobin concentrations. Throughout the study, cows in the understocked treatment had higher mean calcium and tended to have higher albumin and at 3 wk after calving tended to have lower mean liver triacylglycerol content. Overall, there was no treatment effect on phagocytosis, but cows with a higher C_Ind in the understocked treatment group had greater oxidative burst function. There was no effect of treatment on endometritis. Despite increased competition and lower lying time, the expected harmful effects of crowding and competition on metabolic indicators and innate immune function were mostly not observed. Although this does not refute the importance of access to feeding and lying space, these results indicate that metabolic and reproductive health is more complex than can be explained solely by exposure to what are understood to be best practices for space allowances.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy Science→Same topicReproductive Physiology in Livestock→French-language works237,207→