Apparent zinc absorption: a comparison between Ayrshire and Holstein lactating cows - Raw data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a lack of data about potential differences in trace mineral absorption within dairy cow breeds. The objective of this study was to evaluate if apparent zinc absorption between Ayrshire and Holstein lactating cows differs. A total of 12 multiparous cows (6 Ayrshire and 6 Holstein) were used in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design with periods of 35-d duration (26 d of diet adaptation followed by data collection). Daily intake and total faeces collection were performed on 7 consecutive days. Daily samples of total mixed ration, refusals, and faeces were composited by week and analysed for zinc concentration by atomic absorption spectrometry. Apparent absorption was calculated as daily dietary intake minus excretion in faeces over dietary intake. The percentage of inclusion of the mineral and vitamin supplement was 1.56% and 1.47% for Ayrshire and Holstein cows, respectively, accounting for different milk production, body weight, and dry matter intake between the 2 breeds. Dry matter intake of Ayrshire cows averaged 20.5 (SE: 0.8) kg/d and 25.8 (SE: 0.8) kg/d for Holstein cows resulting in a tendency for Holstein cows to ingest greater quantity of zinc. Zinc excretion was significantly greater for Holstein cows compared to Ayrshire cows but this was not translated into different retention or apparent absorption. Averaged apparent zinc absorption did not differ between breeds and was 21% and 16% for Ayrshire and Holstein, respectively, with a variation from -15 to 31%, regardless of the breed. In summary, averaged apparent zinc absorption was similar to the values reported in the literature. However, under the current experimental conditions, the technique using dietary intake minus faecal output to measure apparent zinc absorption led to an important variation between animals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".