Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low feed intake for beef cattle occurs in association with weaning, parturition, heat stress, transportation, newly received feedlot cattle, and for cattle with metabolic disorders, digestive disorders, and infectious disease. Based on recent studies, it is clear that low feed intake not only reduces nutrient supply but also decreases short-chain fatty acid absorption across the ruminal epithelium and when severe, can decrease gastrointestinal barrier function. The reduction in nutrient absorption and increased risk for molecule translocation across the gastrointestinal tract predispose cattle to a short-term energy deficit. In addition to the effects arising from low feed intake, recovery of the gastrointestinal tract after low feed intake is of critical importance. We have demonstrated that exposure to low feed intake followed by a return to ad libitum feed provision induces ruminal acidosis, even without a dietary change and with low feed intake during recovery. Moreover, the severity of low feed intake affects the recovery responses for dry matter intake and short-chain fatty acid absorption in a dose-dependent manner and exposure to severe low feed intake still results in compromised barrier function extending 21 d after the low feed intake challenge. For situations where low feed intake is predictable (e.g. transportation), The diet fed prior to low feed intake and following low feed intake can affect the severity of the response and rate of recovery. However, for most instances, low feed intake is not predictable or the exact timeline for exposure cannot be accurately predicted. Finally, use of supplements that help support gastrointestinal function may further enhance the recovery response. Thus, it is clear that low feed intake can have negative effects on gastrointestinal function, but there are strategies available to help accelerate recovery of the gastrointestinal tract after a period of low feed intake.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".