MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301562958 · doi:10.2527/jas.2015-9009

Using organic acids to control subacute ruminal acidosis and fermentation in feedlot cattle fed a high-grain diet1,2

2015· article· en· W2301562958 on OpenAlexaff
D. Vyas, K. A. Beauchemin, K. M. Koenig

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFumaric acidMalic acidLatin squareAnimal scienceAcidosisFeedlotChemistrySilageOrganic acidCitric acidFermentationNeutral Detergent FiberFood scienceRumenDry matterBiologyBiochemistryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to determine whether supplementing organic acids can prevent incidences of subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) in beef heifers fed a diet consisting of 8% barley silage and 92% barley grain-based concentrate (DM basis). Ten ruminally cannulated Hereford crossbred heifers (484 ± 25 kg BW) were used in a replicated 5 × 5 Latin square design with 14-d periods including 10 d for dietary adaptation and 4 d for measurements. Dietary treatments included no supplementation (Control), low fumaric acid (61 g/d), high fumaric acid (125 g/d), low malic acid (59 g/d), and high malic acid (134 g/d). Organic acid supplementation had no effect on DMI ( = 0.77). Similarly, no effects were observed on mean ( = 0.74), minimum ( = 0.64), and maximum ( = 0.27) ruminal pH measured continuously for 48 h. Moreover, area under the curve for pH thresholds 6.2 ( = 0.97), 5.8 ( = 0.66), 5.5 ( = 0.55), and 5.2 ( = 0.93) was similar for all treatments. However, malic acid supplementation lowered the amount of time that ruminal pH was <6.2 compared with the Control ( = 0.02) and fumaric acid treatments ( < 0.01). No effects were observed on total VFA concentrations with organic acid supplementation ( = 0.98) compared with the Control, but greater total VFA concentrations were observed with fumaric acid compared with the malic acid treatments ( = 0.02). The population of total culturable bacteria 3 h after feeding was reduced with supplemental malic acid compared with the Control ( = 0.03) and fumaric acid treatments ( = 0.03). However, no effects were observed with organic acid supplementation on lactic acid-utilizing bacteria ( = 0.59). In conclusion, under the conditions of the present study, organic acid supplementation did not have any significant effects on ruminal fermentation parameters compared with the Control and were not effective in preventing SARA in beef cattle fed high-grain diets.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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