MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206489253 · doi:10.1093/jas/skab235.839

PSXIV-11 Silage source, physically effective neutral detergent fiber, and undigested neutral detergent fiber concentrations affect eating behavior, ruminal pH and reticular motility of finishing heifers

2021· article· en· W3206489253 on OpenAlexaff
M. C. Pereira, K. A. Beauchemin, Tim A. McAllister, Wenzhu Yang, Joyce Van Donkersgoed, D. J. Gibb, Katharine M Wood, G.B. Penner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilageNeutral Detergent FiberLatin squareAnimal scienceChemistryDry matterBiologyFood scienceRumenFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study evaluated the effects of silage source, physically effective neutral detergent fiber (peNDF), and undigested neutral detergent fiber (uNDF) concentrations on eating behavior, ruminal pH, and reticular contractions for finishing beef heifers. Six Hereford′Simmental heifers (579±51.2 kg) were used in a replicated 6×6 Latin square (21-d periods) balanced for carry-over effects with 2×2 + 2 factorial treatment arrangement. Barley grain-based diets included barley (BarS) or wheat silage (WhS) at 10% of dietary DM. Silages were harvested at two chop lengths to yield low (LpeNDF) vs. high peNDF (HpeNDF) silage. For both BarS and WhS, chopped wheat straw was included (5% of DM) by replacing an equal proportion of LpeNDF silages to evaluate low vs. high uNDF (7.3 vs. 8.2% dietary DM) concentrations. Heifers fed HpeNDF WhS had greater DMI (silage′peNDF; P < 0.01) than those fed HpeNDF BarS, but DMI did not differ for LpeNDF treatments. Ruminating and eating time increased for heifers fed HpeNDF WhS relative to LpeNDF WhS, but were not different for BarS (silage′peNDF; P ≤ 0.02). Increasing uNDF increased eating and ruminating times for heifers fed WhS, but not BarS (silage′uNDF; P ≤ 0.03). Mean ruminal pH averaged 5.97 and was not affected by silage, peNDF, uNDF, or the interactions (P ≥ 0.12). Feeding BarS increased the duration (384 vs. 256 min/d; P = 0.02) and area (84.5 vs. 43.8 pH×min/d; P = 0.02) that pH was < 5.5 relative to WhS. Increasing peNDF numerically reduced the frequency of reticular contractions when fed BarS but numerically increased them when fed WhS (silage′peNDF; P < 0.01). Reticular contractions were not affected by dietary uNDF concentration (P ≥ 0.13). These data highlight that at a constant inclusion rate, silage source and chop length interact to affect DMI, eating behavior, ruminal pH, and reticular motility indicating the need to account for silage type, peNDF, and uNDF in diet formulation for finishing 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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