MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110408760 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaa278.234

167 Addition of garlic powder at low doses stimulated mineral consumption in feedlot cattle

2020· article· en· W3110408760 on OpenAlexaffabout
Obioha N Durunna, Iris Ho In Cheang-Deis, Bart Lardner, Kateryn Rochon, Herman W. Barkema, H. C. Block

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeedlotAnimal scienceGARLIC POWDERCompletely randomized designFeed conversion ratioCrossbreedBeef cattleChemistryBody weightBiologyFood scienceEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The trial evaluated whether the addition of garlic powder increased mineral intake and reduced fly abundance in feedlot cattle. Following a completely randomized design, one hundred and four (104) spring-born crossbred steers (BW 529 ± 8kg) were recruited for the feeding trial at Lakeland College, Vermilion Alberta, Canada. Each steer was assigned to one of four treatment groups (26 steers each) where each group received a commercial feedlot mineral mixed with garlic powder to give a final supplement mix that contained either 2.5% or 5% garlic powder or 0.3% garlic-oil-based premix or 0% garlic product (as control). The animals received a feedlot ration. The different treatment groups were kept within side-by-side pens, each equipped with water troughs and automatic feeding equipment to measure individual feed and mineral consumption. Feed and mineral supplements were provided ad libitum. Differences were observed for mineral intake (P = 0.003), ADG (P = 0.002) and feed conversion efficiency (P = 0.01). Compared to the control, mineral supplement consumption increased between 18 to 50% in groups that received garlic-infused supplements. Fly counts did not differ among the groups, in part, due to low overall fly abundance. While there were no differences (P = 0.21) in the length of time the steers spent consuming feed, differences existed for time spent consuming minerals (P = 0.002) and mineral bunk visits (P = 0.0003). There was no difference (P > 0.18) in DMI, final body weight or hot carcass weight among the different groups. The hematological and biochemical parameters were within normal ranges for healthy cattle, and there was no difference in carcass quality grades (P = 0.78). Even though the impact on fly-counts was inconclusive, the preliminary results show that including low-dose garlic powder could be a practical strategy of increasing mineral consumption without any associated negative health consequences.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207