Impact of severity of ruminal acidosis on feed-sorting behaviour of beef cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine how feed sorting changes in response to the severity of an induced episode of acute ruminal acidosis. Sixteen Angus heifers (261 ± 6.1 kg; bodyweight (BW) ± s.e.m.) were adapted to a high-grain diet (9% forage) before a ruminal acidosis challenge. Ruminal acidosis was induced by restricting feed to 50% of dry matter intake (DMI) as a proportion of BW for 24 h, followed by an intra-ruminal infusion of ground barley at 10% of DMI as a proportion of BW. Ruminal pH and feed sorting were monitored for 8 days (Base) before the challenge and on the challenge (CH) day. Ruminal pH data (duration (min) and area above the curve (min × pH) of pH <5.5) were recorded using an indwelling measurement system. To assess feed sorting, feed and orts were sampled daily and subjected to particle-size analysis. The particle separator had three screens (19, 8, 1.18 mm) and a bottom pan, resulting in four fractions (long, medium, short, fine). Sorting (%) was calculated as the actual intake/predicted intake of each particle fraction. During the Base period and the CH day, heifers sorted for long, medium and short particles, and sorted against fine particles. During the Base period, heifers experienced ruminal pH <5.5 for 489 ± 73 min/day with an area of 154 ± 29 (pH × min)/day; on the CH day, the duration increased to 1020 ± 75 min/day with an area of 631 ± 102 (pH × min)/day. A greater change in duration of pH <5.5 was associated with a greater increase in sorting for long and medium particles. A greater change in the area of pH <5.5 was associated with a greater increase in sorting for long particles and against fine particles. Overall, results show that cattle that experienced a greater degree of acidosis partially coped by sorting their ration more to consume a greater proportion of long, fibrous particles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".