MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104865695 · doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1264

Repeated Ruminal Acidosis Challenges in Lactating Dairy Cows at High and Low Risk for Developing Acidosis: Ruminal pH

2008· article· en· W2104865695 on OpenAlexafffund
F. Dohme, T.J. DeVries, K. A. Beauchemin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaWest Virginia University
KeywordsAcidosisAnimal scienceRumenForageLactationTotal mixed rationInternal medicineEndocrinologyChemistryMedicineBiologyFood scienceAgronomyIce calvingPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of this experiment was to determine whether lactating dairy cows that are at high (HR) or low (LR) risk for experiencing ruminal acidosis, because of their diet and stage of lactation, differ in their response to an acidosis challenge. A secondary objective was to determine whether the severity of acidosis changes with repeated challenges. The experiment was a completely randomized design with 2 groups (risk scenarios, HR vs. LR) and 3 periods corresponding to 3 repeated acidosis challenges. Eight lactating ruminally cannulated cows were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: HR, early lactation cows fed a 45% forage diet, or LR, midlactation cows fed a 60% forage diet. Cows were exposed to 3 acidosis challenges, each separated by 14 d. The challenge consisted of restricting total mixed rations to 50% of ad libitum intake for 24 h, followed by a 1-h meal of 4 kg of ground barley-wheat before allocating the total mixed rations. Ruminal pH was measured continuously for 9 of the 14 d each period using an indwelling system. Subacute acidosis (SARA) was described at 2 thresholds: pH <5.8 and pH <5.5. As expected, HR cows had lower ruminal pH profiles (curves) compared with LR cows: mean pH (5.81 vs. 6.21) and nadir pH (5.13 vs. 5.53). The HR cows also experienced SARA to a greater extent than LR cows during the experiment (pH <5.8, 10.6 vs. 3.5 h/d; pH <5.5, 5.9 vs. 1.6 h/d). The pH profiles of cows in both risk categories decreased with each challenge period; mean pH was 6.13, 6.03, 5.77, and nadir pH was 5.52, 5.34, and 5.14 in periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The challenges caused a similar decrease in pH for cows in both risk categories, but because the HR cows had a lower baseline pH, they experienced more severe SARA with each subsequent challenge. Feed restriction the day before administering the acidosis challenge caused ruminal pH to gradually increase. On the challenge day, the entire grain allotment was consumed by all cows in period 1, six cows in period 2, and only 3 cows in period 3. The pH plummeted immediately after each grain challenge. Ruminal pH remained very low during the first day after the challenge for all cows, but LR cows began their recovery more quickly than HR cows. Regardless of risk category, with each successive challenge, the pH decrease on the challenge day was more severe: nadir pH on the challenge day was 5.19, 5.07, and 4.90 and duration of SARA (pH <5.8) was 12.2, 13.4, and 15.8 h/d in periods 1, 2, and 3. This study indicates that cows become more prone to acidosis over time even though they decrease intake of the challenge grain to avoid acidosis. The severity of each subsequent bout of acidosis increases, especially for cows fed diets low in physically effective fiber and at high acidosis risk. Therefore, a bout of acidosis that occurs due to improper feed delivery or poor diet formulation can have long-term consequences on cow health and productivity.

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)0.001
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 score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations140
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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