Evaluation of whole flaxseed and the use of tannin-containing fava beans as an alternative to peas in a co-extruded flaxseed product on ruminal fermentation, selected milk fatty acids, and production in dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the effects of whole versus extruded flaxseed and the use of tannin-containing fava beans as a replacement for peas in an extruded flaxseed-based supplement on rumen fermentation, selected milk fatty acids, and production in dairy cows. Eight Holstein cows were used in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin square consisting of 28-d periods. Cows were fed a control diet (CONT) or 1 of 3 diets that contained a whole flaxseed supplement (FLX), an extruded flaxseed and pea supplement (EXT; linPRO-R, O&T Farms Ltd., Regina, SK, Canada), or an extruded flaxseed and tannin-containing fava bean supplement (EXTT). Dry matter intake was less in cows fed FLX, EXT, and EXTT compared with those fed CONT ( P = 0.006). Milk yield was greater in cows fed EXT (44.4 kg/d) compared with those fed FLX (42.3 kg/d; P = 0.023) and tended to be greater in cows fed FLX, EXT, and EXTT (average 43.5 kg/d) compared with those fed CONT (41.9 kg/d; P = 0.073). Milk fat percentage was less in cows fed FLX, EXT, and EXTT compared with those fed CONT ( P = 0.033); however, milk fat yield was unaffected. The C18:3n-3 and cis -9, trans -11 conjugated linoleic acid fatty acids were greater in milk of cows fed EXT compared with those fed FLX ( P = 0.001). No differences in milk fatty acid composition were observed between EXT and EXTT. These results demonstrate that feeding extruded flaxseed supplements containing peas or tannin-containing fava beans effectively improve milk yield and milk fatty acid profile when compared with whole flaxseed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".