MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312110014 · doi:10.3168/jds.2022-22500

Symposium review: The impact of absorbed nutrients on energy partitioning throughout lactation

2022· review· en· W4312110014 on OpenAlexaff
Paola Piantoni, M.J. VandeHaar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsCargill (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactationPropionateNutrientInsulinDigestion (alchemy)Internal medicineBiologyEndocrinologyHormoneChemistryFood scienceBiochemistryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most nutrition models and some nutritionists view ration formulation as accounting transactions to match nutrient supplies with nutrient requirements. However, diet and stage of lactation interact to alter the partitioning of nutrients toward milk and body reserves, which, in turn, alters requirements. Fermentation and digestion of diet components determine feeding behavior and the temporal pattern and profile of absorbed nutrients. The pattern and profile, in turn, alter hormonal signals, tissue responsiveness to hormones, and mammary metabolism to affect milk synthesis and energy partitioning differently depending on the physiological state of the cow. In the fresh period (first 2 to 3 wk postpartum), plasma insulin concentration and insulin sensitivity of tissues are low, so absorbed nutrients and body reserves are partitioned toward milk synthesis. As lactation progresses, insulin secretion and sensitivity increase, favoring deposition instead of mobilization of body reserves. High-starch diets increase ruminal propionate production, the flow of gluconeogenic precursors to the liver, and blood insulin concentrations. During early lactation, the glucose produced will preferentially be used by the mammary gland for milk production. As lactation progresses and milk yield decreases, glucose will increasingly stimulate repletion of body reserves. Diets with less starch and more digestible fiber increase ruminal production of acetate relative to propionate and, because acetate is less insulinogenic than propionate, these diets can minimize body weight gain. High dietary starch concentration and fermentability can also induce milk fat depression by increasing the production of biohydrogenation intermediates that inhibit milk fat synthesis and thus favor energy partitioning away from the mammary gland. Supplemental fatty acids also impact energy partitioning by affecting insulin concentration and insulin sensitivity of tissues. Depending on profile, physiological state, and interactions with other nutrients, supplemental fatty acids might increase milk yield at the expense of body reserves or partition energy to body reserves at the expense of milk yield. Supplemental protein or AA also can increase milk production but there is little evidence that dietary protein directly alters whole-body partitioning. Understanding the biology of these interactions can help nutritionists better formulate diets for cows at various stages of lactation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.009

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207