MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018921680 · doi:10.2527/jas.2008-1608

Cinnamaldehyde in feedlot cattle diets: Intake, growth performance, carcass characteristics, and blood metabolites1

2009· article· en· W2018921680 on OpenAlexaff
Wenzhu Yang, Burim N. Ametaj, C. Benchaar, M. L. He, K. A. Beauchemin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeedlotRandomized block designAnimal scienceDry matterFeed conversion ratioRumenSilageFeed additiveCinnamaldehydeBiologyChemistryFood scienceFermentationBody weightAgronomyBroilerBiochemistryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cinnamaldehyde (CIN), a natural chemical compound found in the bark of cinnamon trees, can alter rumen fermentation by inhibiting selected ruminal microbes, and consequently, may improve growth performance and feed efficiency of animals. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of supplementing the diet of feedlot cattle with CIN on intake, growth performance, carcass characteristics, and blood metabolites. Seventy yearling steers (BW = 390 +/- 25.2 kg) were assigned to a randomized complete block design with 5 treatments: control (no additive), monensin (MO; 330 mg*steer(-1)*d(-1)), and 400, 800, or 1,600 mg of CIN*steer(-1)*d(-1). At the start of the experiment, steers were blocked according to BW and assigned to 14 blocks of 5 cattle, with cattle within block assigned to treatments. The diets consisted of 9% barley silage, 86% dry-rolled barley grain, and 5% supplement (DM basis). Dry matter intake responded quadratically (P = 0.03) to CIN supplementation with 13% more feed consumed for steers fed CIN (mean of 3 CIN levels) compared with those fed control during the first 28 d of the experiment, and with a tendency of 4% increase over the entire experiment. The ADG (kg/d) tended to respond quadratically (P = 0.08) to CIN supplementation during the first 28 d, but was not affected over the entire experiment (112 d). Feed efficiency (G:F) linearly declined (P = 0.03) during the first 28 d with CIN supplementation and was quadratically affected between d 29 to 56 and d 85 to 112 by CIN dose. Supplementation of MO did not affect (P > 0.15) DMI or growth performance at any time during the experiment. Serum NEFA concentrations were reduced (P = 0.05) by 35, 29, 30, and 22%, respectively, on d 56, 84, 112, and overall with CIN supplementation. Concentrations of serum amyloid A were reduced on d 28 by 56, 60, or 56% for 800 mg of CIN, 1,600 mg of CIN, and MO, respectively, compared with control. Plasma concentrations of lipopolysaccharide binding protein were linearly decreased (P = 0.05) with increasing CIN supplementation on d 28. Results indicate that supplementing a feedlot finishing diet with a small dose of CIN ameliorated feed intake during the initial month but had minimal effects on ADG, feed efficiency, and carcass traits over the entire experiment. Including CIN in the diet of feedlot cattle, particularly early in the feeding period, may help promote intake and reduce the effects of stress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations143
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207