MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887238230 · doi:10.3168/jds.2018-14663

Effect of rumen-protected B vitamins and choline supplementation on health, production, and reproduction in transition dairy cows

2018· article· en· W2887238230 on OpenAlexafffundabout
E.I. Morrison, Heather Reinhardt, Hélène Leclerc, T.J. DeVries, S.J. LeBlanc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsCegep de Saint HyacintheUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
KeywordsMedicineInseminationIce calvingLactationPregnancyAnimal scienceUdderDairy cattleHerdBiologyInternal medicineMastitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives were to determine the effects of a rumen-protected blend of B vitamins and choline (RPBC) on the incidence of health disorders, milk yield, and reproduction in early lactation and the effects on gene expression and liver fat infiltration. A randomized controlled trial in 3 commercial dairy herds (n = 1,346 cows with group as the experimental unit; experiment 1) and a university research herd (n = 50 cows with cow as the experimental unit; experiment 2) evaluated the use of 100 g/cow per d of commercially available proprietary RPBC supplement (Transition VB, Jefo, St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada), or a placebo, fed 3 wk before to 3 wk after calving. In experiment 2 liver biopsies were taken at 4 and 14 ± 1 d in milk to measure triacylglycerol concentrations and expression of 28 genes selected to represent relevant aspects of liver metabolism. Treatment effects were assessed using multivariable mixed logistic regression models for binary health and reproductive outcomes; linear regression models for milk yield, dry matter intake, and liver outcomes; and survival analysis for time insemination and pregnancy. In experiment 1, treatment did not have an effect on the incidence of hyperketonemia (blood β-hydroxybutyrate ≥ 1.2 mmol/L; cumulative incidence to 3 wk postpartum of 28 to 30%), clinical health disorders, or udder edema. The prevalence of anovulation at 8 wk postpartum was 11% in the treatment group and 23% in the control but did not differ statistically given group-level randomization. Pregnancy at first insemination (33 and 35%) and median time to pregnancy to 200 d in milk (96 and 97 d) were not different between treatment and control, respectively. No difference was observed between treatment groups in milk yield or components through the first 3 Dairy Herd Improvement Association test days (44 kg/d in both groups, accounting for parity and components). In experiment 2, there were no differences between treatment groups in feed intake. Mean blood β-hydroxybutyrate was lower at wk 3 in RPBC (0.6 vs. 0.9 ± 0.12 mmol/L) with no difference between treatments for mean blood concentrations of fatty acids (wk -1 or 1) and β-hydroxybutyrate at wk 1 or 2. The gene for acyl-CoA oxidase 1 (ACOX1) had lower mRNA abundance in RPBC with no difference between treatments for the other genes, but the expression of half of the genes assessed differed with days in milk. Liver triacylglycerol was lower in primiparous cows at 4 d in milk in RPBC (2.0 vs. 4.4 ± 1.2%) but not at 14 d in milk (2.2 vs. 3.2 ± 0.97%) with no treatment effect in multiparous cows (4.6 ± 0.8%). Accounting for parity, days in milk, fat and protein percentages, repeated test days, and a random effect of cow, no significant difference was observed between treatments in milk yield across the first 3 Dairy Herd Improvement Association tests (41.2 ± 1.3 in RPBC vs. 38.0 ± 1.4 kg/d in control). Under the diet and management conditions of the field study including low prevalence of clinical health disorders, in experiment 1 we did not detect a benefit of RPBC, but in experiment 2 liver fat content decreased in primiparous cows.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.288
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207