Evidence Hub

Meta-analysis of the effects of supplemental rumen-protected choline during the transition period on performance and health of parous dairy cows

U. Arshad, M. G. Zenobi, C. Staples, J. E. Santos

Journal of Dairy Science, 2020

36 participants · 78 citations

Abstract

The objectives were to use meta-analytic methods to determine the effects of amount of supplemental choline ion as rumen-protected choline (RPC) starting prepartum on production and health of dairy cows. The literature was systematically reviewed and 21 experiments, with up to 66 treatment means and 1,313 prepartum parous cows, were included. All experiments had a treatment with no supplemental choline (0 g/d; n = 30 treatment means), and the amount of choline ion supplemented to treated cows ranged from 5.6 to 25.2 g/d (n = 36 treatment means). Duration of pre- and postpartum feeding of RPC averaged (±standard deviation) 22.0 ± 6.0 and 57.5 ± 42.2 d, respectively. Data collected included the ingredient composition and chemical analyses of pre- and postpartum diets, amount of choline ion supplemented, number of cows per treatment, frequency of health events, and the least squares means and respective standard error of the means for production responses, liver composition, and blood parameters. The concentrations of net energy for lactation and metabolizable amino acids and protein (MP) in pre- and postpartum diets were predicted for each treatment mean using National Research Council (2001). Mixed model meta-analysis was conducted including the random effect of experiment and weighting by the inverse of the standard error of the means squared. Increasing supplementation of choline ion during transition linearly increased pre- (β = 0.0184 ± 0.00425) and postpartum dry matter…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 36 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free