Comparison of the nutritional value and fatty acid composition of milk from four South American camelid species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nutritional value, whey protein, and the fatty acid (FA) composition of milk from four South American camelids (SAC) (vicuna, Vicugna vicugna (Molina, 1782); alpaca, Vicugna pacos (Linnaeus, 1758); guanaco, Lama guanicoe (Müller, 1776); llama, Lama glama (Linnaeus, 1758)) were evaluated and compared with milk from old-world camelids. Samples were collected from healthy animals from the northwest (llama, alpaca, and vicuna) and Patagonia (guanaco) areas of Argentina. Gross composition of milk from SAC showed a higher protein, lactose, and lipid content than camel milk. Serum albumin and α-lactalbumin were the dominant whey proteins, followed by immunoglobulin G (IgG). The FA profile showed from 4:0 to 24:0 FA, with a high level of conjugated fatty acid (CLA; 1.05–1.64 g/100 g of FAME) and its precursor, vaccenic acid. Desaturase activity of C16 and CLA was quite similar between species but was significantly different for C14. Camelid milk showed a lower atherogenicity index than ruminant milk. This is the first time that a comparative study involving four species of SAC was carried out to contribute to the general knowledge of the physiology of new-world camelids. Their milk was determined to be of high nutritional quality, allowing it to be considered an alternative food item for humans in the semi-arid region of South America.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".