MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3198716384 · doi:10.3168/jds.2021-20463

Effects of supplementing Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products to dairy cows from the day of dry-off through early lactation

2021· article· en· W3198716384 on OpenAlexaff
A.M. Zontini, E. Zerbini, Andrea Minuti, Erminio Trevisi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsCargill (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilkingLactationSomatic cell countAnimal scienceAutomatic milkingNEFADairy cattleIce calvingChemistryFood scienceMedicineBiologyFatty acidPregnancyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scope of this experiment was to study the effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product (SCFP; NutriTek, Diamond V) on milk yield, milk composition, somatic cell count, rumination activity, and immunometabolic profile (inflammation) of dairy cows during the peripartum period. Postpartum inflammation severity was evaluated as the liver functionality index (LFI). The LFI is based on profiles of specific blood inflammatory markers in the first month of lactation. We hypothesized that SCFP could increase the rumination time in dairy cows. Treatments were control (CTR; no supplement, n = 17) or SCFP (19 g/d of NutriTek, n = 17) included into a pellet delivered at robotic milking unit. Treatments were fed from d -60 to 42 relative to parturition. Cows were fed the same basal rations formulated to pre- or postpartum requirements. Cows were voluntarily milked with robotic milking unit. Blood samples were collected at d -60, -28, -7, 7, and 28 relative to parturition. To study the effect of the treatment and severity of inflammation during periparturient period on subsequent cow performance, cows were retrospectively divided into 2 groups based on their LFI score: low (LLFI) and high (HLFI). Thus, LFI grouping and supplementation treatment groups were as follows: LLFI-CTR, LLFI-SCFP, HLFI-CTR, HLFI-SCFP. Data were analyzed with ANOVA using a mixed model for repeated measures; the model included the effect of the diet, LFI group, time relative to parturition, and their interaction. The nonesterified fatty acids concentrations were greatest at d 7 of lactation for LLFI-CTR compared with other groups. No other differences in plasma metabolites were observed. The LLFI-CTR cows had a greater reduction of body condition score from d -7 until 28 relative to parturition compared with other groups. Somatic cell counts were not different among groups, with averages of 175, 169, 384, and 126 × 1,000 cells/mL for the HLFI-CTR, HLFI-SCFP, LLFI-CTR, and LLFI-SCFP group, respectively, regardless of day. However, the LLFI-CTR had greater somatic cell count on d 42 compared with other groups. During the week before parturition, the LLFI-CTR group had reduced rumination time of 46 min compared with the other 3 groups. However, the minutes of rumination per day was only different between LLFI-CTR and the LLFI-SCFP groups. Milk production of cows was different for LFI scores as follows: 50.2 versus 46.7 kg/d for HLFI and LLFI, respectively. Interestingly, there were no differences of milk production due to supplementation treatment of the HLFI cows. However, the LLFI-SCFP group produced 49.1 kg/d compared with 44.3 kg/d of the LLFI-CTR group during the first month of lactation. Milk composition did not differ throughout the experimental period for the 4 groups of cows. In conclusion, SCFP supplementation assisted cows experiencing low LFI to maintain milk production, somatic cell count, and plasma nonesterified fatty acid concentrations similar to cows with high LFI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→