MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320805445 · doi:10.2527/jas.2011-4856

Effects of wheat or corn distillers dried grains with solubles on feedlot performance, fecal shedding, and persistence of Escherichia coli O157:H7

2012· article· en· W2320805445 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennyka Hallewell, Tim A. McAllister, James Thomas, Calvin W. Booker, Sherry J. Hannon, G. Kee Jim, L. O. Burciaga-Robles, Michael L. May, Robert E. Peterson, C. Flaig, Erin M. Hussey, Kim Stanford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEscherichia coli research studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentAlberta Health ServicesAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistillers grainsFeedlotFecesBeef cattleAnimal sciencePersistence (discontinuity)InoculationBiologyAnimal feedFood scienceEscherichia coliFeed conversion ratioLivestockBody weightMicrobiologyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) are a coproduct of the ethanol industry and are often used as a replacement for grain in livestock production. Feeding corn DDGS to cattle has been linked to increased fecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7, although in Canada, DDGS are often produced from wheat. This study assessed the effects of including 22.5% wheat or corn DDGS (DM basis) into barley-based diets on performance, carcass characteristics, animal health, and fecal E. coli O157:H7 shedding of commercial feedlot cattle. Cattle (n = 6,817) were randomly allocated to 10 pens per treatment group: WDDGS (diets including 22.5% wheat DDGS), CDDGS (diets including 22.5% corn DDGS), or CTRL (barley substituted for DDGS). Freshly voided fecal pats (n = 588) were collected and pooled monthly for fecal pH measurement and screened for naturally occurring E. coli O157:H7 by immunomagnetic separation (IMS) and direct plating (DP). Hide swabs (n = 367) were collected from randomly selected cattle from each pen before slaughter. Pen-floor fecal samples (n = 18) were collected from treatment groups at entry to the feedlot (<14 d on the finishing diet) and after adapting to the finishing diet for ≥ 14 d, inoculated (10(9) cfu of a 5 strain naldixic acid-resistant E. coli O157:H7 mixture), incubated (20°C) and evaluated weekly (IMS and DP) to assess fecal E. coli O157:H7 persistence. The WDDGS group had 3.0% poorer ADG (P = 0.007), 5.3% poorer G:F (P < 0.001), and a decreased proportion of Canada Quality Grade AAA carcasses (P = 0.022) compared with CTRL cattle. The CDDGS group had a similar ADG (P = 0.06), a decreased proportion of Canada Yield Grade (YG) 1 (P < 0.001), and greater proportions of Canada YG 2 (P = 0.003) and YG 3 (P < 0.001) carcasses compared with the CTRL group. There were no differences among groups in any of the animal health parameters assessed. Inclusion of DDGS in cattle finishing diets had no effect on fecal shedding (P = 0.650) or persistence (P = 0.953) of E. coli O157:H7. However, feces from cattle on starter diets <14 d had longer persistence of E. coli O157:H7 (week) than cattle on finishing diets ≥ 14 d (P < 0.003). Inclusion of DDGS in feedlot diets depends on commodity pricing relative to that of barley and for WDDGS must also include the risk of feedlot performance and carcass grading disadvantages. Feeding cattle barley based-diets with 22.5% corn or wheat DDGS did not affect fecal shedding of E. coli O157:H7.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicEscherichia coli research studiesFrench-language works237,207