MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248517714 · doi:10.2458/azu_jrm_v55i5_willms

Effects of water quality on cattle performance

2002· article· en· W4248517714 on OpenAlexaffabout
W. D. Willms, O. R. Kenzie, Tim A. McAllister

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Range Management · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEffects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaParks Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater qualityRangelandManureEnvironmental scienceLivestockNutrientAnimal scienceGrazingFecal coliformAgronomyBiologyEcologyAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water is an important nutrient for livestock production and is often provided on rangelands directly from ponds or dugouts. Cattle may defecate and urinate into the water thereby adding nutrients and reducing palatability. A study was conducted to examine the effects of water source on cattle production and behavior, to determine the relationship of selected chemical and biological constituents on the observed response and to test the effect of fecal contamination on water consumption. Four dugouts or ponds were selected at 4 sites: 2 in the Fescue Prairie near Stavely in southwestern Alberta, 1 in the Mixed Prairie at Onefour in southeastern Alberta, and 1 in the Palouse Prairie near Kamloops, British Columbia. Yearling Herefords were tested at 3 sites and Hereford cow-calf pairs at 1 Stavely site. At each site, three paddocks radiated from the pond that were stocked with 10 yearlings or cow-calf pairs randomly assigned to either clean water (water delivered to a trough from a well, river, or pond), pond water pumped to a trough (pond(trough)), or direct access into the pond (pond(direct)). The trials were repeated at each site for 3 to 6 years. Observations were made on cattle weight gains, cow backfat thickness, and activity budgets. Fecal samples were analyzed for selected parasites and pathogens. Other experiments were conducted to determine the effects of manure-contaminated water on feed and water consumption and water selection. Calves, with cows drinking clean water, gained 9% more (P < 0.10) weight than those with cows on pond(direct) but cow weight and backfat thickness were not affected. Yearling heifers having access to clean water gained 23% (P = 0.045) and 20% (P = 0.076) more weight than those on pond(direct) and pond(trough), respectively. Cattle avoided water that was contaminated with 0.005% fresh manure by weight when given a choice of clean water. Cattle that had access to clean water spent more time grazing and less time resting than those that were offered pond(trough) or pond(direct). Cattle management must consider water quality together with forage conditions in order to achieve optimal production from rangeland.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Range ManagementSame topicEffects of Environmental Stressors on LivestockFrench-language works237,207