Effects of drinking water sulfate concentrations on feed and water intake, growth, and serum mineral concentrations in growing beef heifers1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to evaluate the effects of drinking water sulfate concentrations on DMI, water intake, growth, and serum mineral concentrations in growing beef heifers fed a high forage diet (63% DM). Two blocks of 16 Hereford-cross heifers were used in a randomized complete block design with 4 treatments. Treatments resulted in water sulfate concentrations of 292 ± 23.5, 1,245 ± 78.7, 2,305 ± 89.7, and 3,376 ± 84.9 mg/L. Heifers were housed in tiestalls, and feed and water intakes were measured daily. Body weight and serum mineral concentrations were measured on 2 consecutive days at the start and end of the 77-d study. Increasing water sulfate increased and then decreased DMI (quadratic, P < 0.001) without affecting ADG or final BW. Water intake was affected cubically (P = 0.009), with greater water intake when heifers were fed 0 or 2,000 mg/L added sulfate. Increasing the concentration of sulfate in water increased sulfur intake (cubic, P < 0.001) and increased the percentage of sulfur in diets (quadratic, P < 0.001). There were no effects of water sulfate on the concentration of most serum minerals, but the serum copper concentration decreased linearly (P = 0.028) with increasing water sulfate and selenium concentration increased and then decreased with increasing sulfate (quadratic, P = 0.013). These data suggest that water sulfate concentrations above 2,000 mg/L may decrease DMI and that increasing water sulfate concentrations linearly reduced serum copper.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".