MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400337255 · doi:10.3168/jds.2024-24922

Effects of protein and forage source on performance and splanchnic and mammary net fluxes of nutrients in lactating dairy cows

2024· article· en· W4400337255 on OpenAlexafffund
C.E. Galindo, D.R. Ouellet, Gaëlle Maxin, R. Martineau, D. Pellerin, H. Lapierre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversité Laval
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanola Council of Canada
KeywordsSilageLatin squareForageAnimal scienceSoybean mealNutrientMealDry matterSplanchnicChemistryBiologyRumenAgronomyFood scienceFermentationInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to determine if the decreased MP supply predicted by the NRC (2001) when canola meal (CM) substitutes soybean meal (SBM) was supported by direct measurement of net portal absorption of AA or energy-yielding nutrients, plus the effect of the type of forage in CM-based rations. Nine Holstein cows with indwelling catheters in splanchnic blood vessels, 8 also with a ruminal cannula, were used to examine the effects of protein source in corn silage-based diets, comparing SBM versus CM, and forage source in CM-based diets, comparing corn versus grass silage. The cows were allocated to a triple 3 × 3 Latin square design with 21-d periods. The 3 experimental diets, formulated to be isoenergetic and isonitrogenous, were based on: (1) SBM and corn silage (SoCo); (2) CM and corn silage (CaCo) and (3) CM and cool-season grass silage (CaGr). Averages of intake, milk yield, and milk composition of the last 3 d of each period were used for statistical analyses. On d 21 of each period, 6 sets of arterial, portal, hepatic, and mammary blood samples and 2 ruminal fluid samples were collected. On d 12 of period 2, the protein sources were incubated in nylon bags to determine 16-h ruminal disappearance of DM and N and to obtain 16-h residues. Finally, 5 d after the completion of the Latin square design, the mobile bag technique was used to determine DM and N intestinal disappearance of the 16-h residues of SBM and CM. Pre-planned contrasts were used to compare the effect of the protein source in cows fed corn silage (i.e., SoCo vs. CaCo) and the effect of forage in cows fed CM (i.e., CaCo vs. CaGr). Data of the cow without a rumen canula could not be used because of health problem. In corn silage-based diets, substitution of SBM by CM tended to increase milk (6%) and milk fat (7%) yields. The 8% higher ruminal N disappearance and the 19% decreased MP supply from RUP predicted by NRC (2001) were not supported by the 25% decrease in ruminal ammonia concentration, similar net portal absorption of AA (except 22% higher for Met), and the 14% decrease in urea hepatic removal when CM substituted SBM. Ruminal incubation of CM in nylon bags does not appear suitable for adequate determination of the rumen by-pass of a protein source such as CM. Inclusion of grass silage rather than corn silage in CM-based diets tended to increase milk (6%) and increased milk lactose (8%) yields. Neither protein nor forage source resulted in variations of metabolism of energy-yielding nutrients that could explain observed increments in cow performance. The present study indicates no decreased AA availability when CM substitutes SBM. Therefore, substitution of SBM by CM in diets based on corn silage and CM in corn- or grass silage diets can be used successfully in high producing dairy cows.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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