MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752344418

Analysis of Ergot (Claviceps purpurea) Alkaloids in Grain and Effect on Cow-Calf Performance

2017· dissertation· en· W2752344418 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
T. Grusie

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library - University of Saskatchewan (University of Saskatchewan) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsClaviceps purpureaBiologyFood scienceTraditional medicineBiotechnologyBotanyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ergot contamination of cereal crops and grasses has been of increasing concern for both grain and animal producers. The overall objective was to examine ergot contamination from an analytical, regulatory and biological perspective. The objectives of the first study were to determine the correlation between number of ergot sclerotia and weight compared to the total ergot alkaloid concentration, to evaluate the effect of particle size (PS) on ergot alkaloid analysis and to determine the impact of sample volume on analytical variability. This study demonstrated that correlations existed between both ergot sclerotia count and weight compared to the total alkaloid concentration (P’s < 0.001) but did not exist for either, at ergot alkaloid concentrations below 350 µg/kg (P = 0.956 and 0.769 respectively). This study also determined that a finer grind (PS = 192 µm) produced a lower variability (P = 0.041) than a coarser grind (PS = 516 µm). The coefficient of variation (CV) was also numerically reduced as sample volume increased (97% CV for 75 mL to 64% CV for 1000 mL; mean of all concentrations) but increased as sample concentration declined (17% CV for 81678 µg/kg to 284% for 35 µg/kg; mean of all sample volumes). An analytical approach with fine grinding of a minimum sample volume of 1000 mL (if not the entire sample available) should be used to assess ergot contamination to reduce variability. The objective of the second study was to determine if the percentages of individual ergot alkaloids were similar across different cereal grains collected from across Western Canada over different years. Ergocristine was the predominant alkaloid accounting for half of the total alkaloids in all grain types. Ergocornine (6% ± 1; P = 0.201), ergocristine (48% ± 2; P = 0.939), ergocryptine (17% ± 2; P = 0.302) and ergosine (5% ± 0.5; P = 0.239) were of similar proportions in barley (n = 39), rye (n = 7), triticale (n = 9) and wheat (n = 94). However, small differences were found between grain types for both ergometrine and ergotamine (P = 0.027 and 0.011 respectively). There were no yearly alkaloid proportion differences between the six alkaloids in barley and wheat 2015/2016 samples (P = 0.969, 0.680, 0.572, 0.080, 0.119 and 0.189 for ergocornine, ergocristine, ergocryptine, ergometrine, ergosine and ergotamine respectively). However, ergocornine was higher in wheat (P = 0.017) and ergometrine was higher in barley (P = 0.002) when comparing the 2015/2016 barley and wheat samples. With the overall proportions of ergot alkaloids comparable among the four grain types collected across Western Canada a maximum total ergot alkaloid concertation, as opposed to individual ergot alkaloid concentrations, can be considered acceptable. The objective of the third study was to evaluate the impact of ergot consumption in cow-calf performance. Overall, ergot alkaloid concentrations up to 820 µg/kg for 9 weeks had no effect on cow weight, calf weight, prolactin concentration, rectal temperature, progesterone concentration or timing of first progesterone rise (P = 0.931, 0.077, 0.298, 0.163, 0.792, 0.376). There was also no effect on the size of the first and second follicle to ovulate postpartum (P = 0.403 and 0.414 respectively) or the number of days until the first and second postpartum corpus luteum appearance (P = 0.949 and 0.984 respectively). The maximum size of the corpus luteum was 4 mm larger in the 820 µg/kg ergot treatment group compared to the control treatment (P = 0.028) for the first ovulation postpartum, however no differences were observed between the control and 820 µg/kg groups by the second ovulation (P = 0.113). A revised ergot tolerance concentration of 820 µg/kg for beef cows is suggested based on the reproduction/hormone endpoints.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Library - University of Saskatchewan (University of Saskatchewan)Same topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207