MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3108524015 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaa278.473

PSI-15 Feeding garlic powder at low doses does not negatively affect feedlot cattle health

2020· article· en· W3108524015 on OpenAlexaff
Iris Ho In Cheang-Deis, Bart Lardner, Kateryn Rochon, Herman W. Barkema, H. C. Block, N.J. Cook, Obioha N Durunna

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceGARLIC POWDERFeedlotDry matterRumpFeed conversion ratioBeef cattleCrossbreedBody weightBiologyFood scienceChemistryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Antimicrobial and insectifugal effects have been reported for dehydrated garlic powder. With limited knowledge of its impact on the health of beef cattle, this study investigated whether free-choice minerals infused with garlic powder affected cattle blood parameters and long-term stress during the summer. A total of 104 crossbred steers (26 steers per group) were randomly assigned to either 0% garlic product (Control), 0.3% garlic-oil-based premix (GOil), 2.5% garlic powder (2.5% GP) or 5% garlic powder (5% GP). Feed and mineral supplements were fed separately in individual GrowSafe® bunks to monitor each steer’s feed and mineral intake. Measures of individual steer performance collected include body weights and gains, feed intake and ultrasound body fat levels. Blood was collected from 10 steers with the greatest intake and 5 steers with the least mineral intake in each group for biochemical and hematological analyses. Hair samples were clipped from each steer (3 times) from the rump region to evaluate differences cortisol levels as a measure of long-term stress. Preliminary results showed no difference in final body weight (P =0.19) and dry matter intake (P =0.89). However, compared with the control, all garlic treatment groups had greater average daily mineral intake (P = 0.003). The group that received GOil had a greater average daily gain (P = 0.002) and more gain-to-feed ratio (P =0.01) than other groups. No difference (P >0.05) was observed in most serum biochemical parameters with the exception of 5% GP that had a significantly lower bilirubin (P = 0.0001) and albumin (P = 0.002) concentration but all biochemical and hematological measurements fell within the normal range for beef cattle. There was no difference (P = 0.29) among the groups for cortisol levels. The preliminary results show that low-dose infusion of garlic powder was not associated with any adverse health conditions in beef cattle.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→