Metabolic and performance responses to the replacement of lactose by fat in milk replacer formulations for dairy calves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent trend in the dairy industry towards elevated planes of milk feeding of young calves requires reconsideration of calf milk replacer (CMR) formulations. The fat:lactose ratio in CMR is typically lower than that of whole milk and effects of increasing fat inclusion at the expense of lactose in CMR on nutrient metabolism and gut function of rearing calves are not sufficiently understood. Therefore, the current study aimed to determine the effect of increasing replacement of lactose by fat on growth performance, nutrient digestibility and metabolism, and glucose/insulin sensitivity. A total of 40 male calves (1.7 ± 0.10 days of age, 46.7 ± 0.76 kg BW) were blocked based on arrival date and randomly assigned to one of four treatments containing differing levels of fat and lactose (18F: 18.8% and 47.6%; 22F: 22.3% and 42.8%; 26F: 26.0% and 38.6%; 30F: 30.1% and 33.8%, fat and lactose DM, respectively). Calves were individually housed for the duration of the 11 week study and received their CMR (150 g/L) twice a day (0700 and 1600 h) from a teat bucket. The CMR feeding schedule consisted of 6 L/d from d 2 to 14, 7 L/d from d 15 to 56, and then 4 L/d during gradual weaning from 56 to 63 days. Pelleted starter, chopped straw, and water were available ad libitum throughout the study. Measurements included feed intake, growth, nutrient digestibility, fecal composition, and blood parameters. A glucose tolerance test (GTT) was performed between 28 and 32 days of age. By design, metabolizable energy intake from CMR increased linearly with fat level, but this did not result in a difference in BW, ADG, or concentrate intake. Fecal composition remained unaffected by treatment except for higher fat content in 22F compared to 26F. Also, plasma non-esterified fatty acids and total bilirubin differences were limited to 22F having the highest values whereas 26F had the lowest values. Regarding the GTT, total area under the curve (AUC) for glucose was highest in 22F and 26F and lowest in 18F whereas the AUC between 30 and 60 min for glucose was highest in 26F and lowest in 18F and 22F. Overall, altering the lactose:fat ratio in CMR did not affect growth performance while having minor effects on nutrient metabolism, but future investigation should focus on physiological consequences and effects in adult life to understand biological impact of fat and lactose levels in CMR for rearing calves.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".