Effect of a high forage : concentrate ratio on milk yield, blood parameters and oxidative status in lactating cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A feeding strategy that requires a forage : concentrate ratio equal to 70 : 30, with at least five different herbs in the forage and the use of silages prohibited, has recently been introduced in Italy. Despite the benefits in terms of human health (lower ω6 : ω3 ratio, higher conjugated linoleic acid level) of the obtained milk, little information regarding the possible effects on cows’ health is available. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of such a feeding strategy in dairy cows (90 days in milk at the beginning of the trial) on milk yield and composition, and blood metabolic profile, including the evaluation of oxidative stress. The proposed feeding strategy, compared with a semi-intensive strategy, resulted in an improvement of animal oxidative status (lower levels of reactive oxygen metabolites, higher levels of antioxidant potential and anti-reactive oxygen metabolites) and a significant increase of milk urea only in the first part of the trial. No differences in milk yield and composition were detected throughout the trial.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".