MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296616774 · doi:10.1093/jas/skac247.725

PSVIII-6 Impact of Naturally Occurring Water with High Sulfate Concentration on Feed and Water Intake, Growth, and Trace Mineral Status of Beef Cattle

2022· article· en· W4296616774 on OpenAlexaff
M. C. Pereira, Catherine M Lang, Dwayne Summach, Jordan A Johnson, G.B. Penner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Ministry of AgricultureUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceDry matterSulfateChemistryTrace mineralBeef cattleWater intakeTrace MineralsBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study evaluated the impact of naturally occurring water with a high-sulfate concentration on dry matter intake (DMI), water intake, growth, and trace mineral status of yearling beef heifers. Angus-based heifers (n = 48; 398.4 ± 22.1 kg) were randomly assigned to 1 of 12 pens (4 heifers/pen) and fed for 100 d arranged into 25 d periods. Heifers were provided water containing 350 (CON); 2,300 (MEDS); or 4,300 mg/L (HIGHS) sulfate. Concentrated water (71,482 mg/L sulfate) from natural source was collected and blended to achieve the treatments. All data were analyzed using the fixed effects of treatment, period (d 1-25, 26-50, 51-75, and 76-100), and the treatment × period interaction, with period as a repeated measure. Average daily gain, and gain-to-feed were not affected (P>0.29). Provision of HIGHS decreased (interaction, P< 0.01) DMI from d 1-25, 26-50 and 51-75, with no effect from d 76-100 compared with CON. Heifers drinking CON and MEDS during d 26-50 had greater (interaction, P< 0.01) water intake than HIGHS with no differences among treatments otherwise. Total sulfate intake (g/d) was greater for HIGHS, followed by MEDS and CON with a greater difference between treatments during d 26-50 (interaction, P< 0.01). Heifers provided MEDS and HIGHS had a greater (interaction, P< 0.01) reduction in serum copper compared with CON. Liver copper concentration did not differ at the start of the study but was 74% and 62% of CON for MEDS and HIGHS, respectively at the end of the study (interaction, P< 0.01). Serum selenium was greater for MEDS and HIGHS than CON; while liver selenium was least for HIGHS heifers at the end of the study (interaction, P< 0.01). These data highlight that beef heifers were able to tolerate 213 g/d of sulfate intake with no negative impact on growth performance; however, MEDS and HIGHS decreased liver copper and liver selenium concentrations.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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