MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992690118 · doi:10.1093/jas/skz258.760

PSXI-24 Rumen temperature, fermentation and microbial signatures are poorly associated with steer feed-efficiency profiles

2019· article· en· W2992690118 on OpenAlexaff
Obioha N Durunna, Daalkhaijav Damiran, John Campbell, J. A. Carroll, Bart Lardner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRumenResidual feed intakeAnimal scienceForageFermentationBiologyFeed conversion ratioAnimal feedAgronomyFood scienceBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Breeding feed-efficient cattle can reduce the environmental footprint of beef operations but assessing all replacement candidates for feed-intake is not practical due to cost implications. The main objectives of this study were to evaluate if rumen temperature (RumT), measured with wireless rumen Thermobolus® can distinguish steers with different feed-efficiency profiles and whether steers with divergent efficiency profiles have different nutrient fermentation signatures. The study also validated the relationship between rectal temperature (RecT) and RumT measured with automatic thermistors. Residual feed intake (RFI) profiles of 160 steers were measured over two years. All steers were assessed for RFI profiles using high and moderate forage diets, respectively, over two successive periods each year. Each steer was fitted with a rumen Thermobolus® throughout each ~80-d test period while half of the steers wore an automatic temperature-logger rectal device for ~30d. The devices recorded the RumT and RecT every 5 minutes, respectively. Rumen fluid samples were collected from high-RFI (n = 5) and low-RFI (n = 5) steers to assess if differences in rumen fermentation and microbial profiles exist. Circadian-adjusted RumT and RecT for each steer were used for analysis. The within-period correlations between RumT and RecT ranged between 49 and 77%. There was a trend (P = 0.08) that differences exist for rhythm-adjusted temperatures among different RFI profiles with low-RFI steers (39.72±0.01oC) having lower average RumT than those in high (39.75±0.01oC) or medium (39.74±0.01oC) classes. The correlation between the two test-periods for rhythm-adjusted RumT was 65% while the correlation between RFI from both periods was 47%. There was no difference (P > 0.30) between high- and low-RFI animals for the total or individual volatile fatty acid fractions or microbial populations. The narrow temperature variation among RFI classes limits its use as screening tool but the higher across-period correlation encourages the need for further studies into alternative potential applications.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207