MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067724146 · doi:10.3168/jds.2012-5772

Individual animal variability in ruminal bacterial communities and ruminal acidosis in primiparous Holstein cows during the periparturient period

2012· article· en· W2067724146 on OpenAlexafffund
Riazuddin Mohammed, David M. Stevenson, Paul J. Weimer, G.B. Penner, K. A. Beauchemin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsIce calvingRumenAnimal scienceAcidosisTotal mixed rationLactationDairy cattlePostpartum periodBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyFermentationMedicineFood sciencePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate variability among individual cows in their severity of ruminal acidosis (RA) pre- and postpartum, and determine whether this variability was related to differences in their ruminal bacterial community composition (BCC). Variability in the severity of RA among individual cows was characterized based on ruminal fermentation variables. Effects of prepartum dietary treatment on the severity of RA were also examined. Fourteen Holstein heifers paired by expected calving date and BCS were allotted to 1 of 2 prepartum dietary treatments: low-concentrate or high-concentrate diets. All cows received the same lactation diet postpartum. Microbial DNA extracted from 58 ruminal digesta samples in total collected prepartum (d -50, -31, and -14; 27 samples) and postpartum (d +14 and +52; 31 samples) and amplified by PCR were subjected to automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis. Changes in ruminal variables over time [pH, volatile fatty acids (VFA), and acidosis indicators, including duration and area under the rumen pH curve below 5.8, 5.5, and 5.2, measured on d -54, -35, -14, -3, +3, +17, +37, and +58] were analyzed using principal components analysis. Based on the shift (defined as the distance of the mean loadings) between the prepartum and postpartum period for each cow, the 14 cows were classified into 3 groups: least acidotic (n=5), most acidotic (n=5), and intermediate (n=4). Cows in the most acidotic group had greater severity of RA (measured as duration of total RA, mild RA, moderate RA, and acute RA; area under the pH curve for total RA, mild RA, and moderate RA) postpartum than prepartum, and this difference between periods was greater than for the least acidotic cows. Similarly, the RA index (total area of pH <5.8 normalized to intake) showed an interaction between severity of RA and period. The variation in the severity of RA was independent of intake, total VFA concentration, and individual VFA proportions. Production variables (milk yield, fat percentage, fat yield, fat-corrected milk, and efficiency of milk production) were not influenced by the severity of RA. Ruminal BCC was not influenced by dietary treatment or period. However, some cows experienced greater shift in BCC than other cows across the periods. Based on the magnitude of the shift in BCC (distance between mean ordination values across the periods for each cow), cows were grouped into 3 BCC profile categories: stable (5 cows with lesser shift), unstable (5 cows with greater shift), and intermediate (4 cows with average shift). Cows demonstrating a greater shift in BCC were not necessarily those in the most acidotic group and vice versa. The shift in ruminal fermentation variables (principal components analysis rankings) and the shift in BCC (automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis rankings) between pre- and postpartum were not related (n=14; R(2)=0.00). It was concluded that not all cows are equally susceptible to RA and postpartum shifts in BCC appear to be independent of the differences in the severity of RA postpartum.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations57
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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