Assessment of the Effects of Supplemental Rumen Protected B Vitamins and Choline for Periparturient Cows: A Meta-Analysis of 28 Feeding Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are currently no prescribed requirements for B vitamins or choline for dairy cows during the transition period, but many recent studies have shown a variety of benefits from supplying these nutrients to periparturient cows. The purpose of this research effort was to determine the potential benefit of including a rumen protected blend composed of B vitamins (riboflavin, folic acid, vitamin B12) and choline (RPBlend, Jefo Nutrition Inc., St. Hyacinthe, QC, Canada) for dairy cows during the transition period, based on results from 28 on-farm feeding studies (USA-12, Mexico-7, Canada-4, Chile-3, Australia-1, Brazil-1) conducted between 2011 and 2018. All farms participated in monthly herd management record keeping systems and were selected to participate in studies due to their excellent management. Meta-analyses in which risk differences were determined were used to assess the effects of the supplemental RPBlend on health parameters and reproduction. The effect size was used as the determinant of the possible contribution of RPblend on the yields of milk, energy corrected milk (ECM), fat and protein yields during the first four weeks of lactation. Results showed that the inclusion of RPblend reduced (P the displaced abomasum and milk fever did not diminish (P > 0.10) with the inclusion of the BPBlend. The incidence rate of subclinical ketosis, determined as blood beta hydroxy butyric acid greater than 1.2 mM was lower (P (than those not supplemented. The proportion of cows confirmed pregnant by 100 days in milk was greater for cows given the BPBlend (P 0.10) while the yield of milk protein was greater (P < 0.05) when the cows received the blend. These results suggest that the inclusion of rumen protected B vitamins and choline can assist cow health, reproduction and production at the start 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 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 | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".