Effects of lactose content in milk replacer on apparent digestibility, growth, liver messenger RNA expression, and blood parameters related to metabolism of dairy calves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even with the same energy supply, differences in energy sources may affect calf growth and metabolism. In this study, we evaluated the effects of feeding 3 different milk replacers (MR) with different lactose supplies under isoenergetic conditions on calf digestibility, growth, and metabolism-related markers. Fifteen Holstein bull calves were randomly assigned to one of 3 MR feeding treatments: low lactose (L: 38%), medium lactose (M: 41%), or high lactose (H: 46%). After birth, calves were provided colostrum, and treatment MR were fed from 1 d of age and gradually increased to a maximum feeding rate at 20 d of age (L: 1.16 kg/d, M: 1.21 kg/d, H: 1.26 kg/d DM) without feeding solid feeds during the experimental period. Blood samples were temporarily collected weekly to assess blood concentrations of metabolites and hormones. From 30 to 36 d of age, the calves were euthanized and liver samples were collected to determine growth-related mRNA expression. The L calves showed a greater body length than H calves and the highest growth hormone receptor (GHR) mRNA expression. Plasma concentrations of total cholesterol, urea nitrogen, total protein, albumin, insulin, and IGF-1 were not different, but plasma concentrations of triglycerides were greater in order H, M, and L. These results showed that the difference in lactose content in the MR affected calf metabolism, and the L-MR was suggested to be more likely to enhance growth into the peripheral tissues.
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".