MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319332868 · doi:10.1093/jas/skad043

Effect of forage types differing in undigested neutral detergent fiber concentration and forage inclusion rate on reticulo-ruminal motility and fermentation, total tract barrier function, and blood metabolites of finishing beef heifers

2023· article· en· W4319332868 on OpenAlexafffund
M. C. Pereira, Wenzhu Yang, K. A. Beauchemin, Tim A. McAllister, Katharine M Wood, G.B. Penner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersBeef Cattle Research CouncilGovernment of Canada
KeywordsLatin squareForageAnimal sciencePropionateRumenBeef cattleBiologyFermentationFodderChemistryAgronomyFood scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the effects of forages (BarS vs. STR) that differ in the uNDF concentration and FI rate on ruminal fermentation, total tract barrier function, reticulo-ruminal motility, and blood metabolites of beef heifers. Six ruminally cannulated Hereford × Simmental heifers (699 ± 69.1 kg BW) were used in a 6 × 6 Latin square (26 d periods) with a 2 × 3 factorial treatment arrangement. However, 1 heifer was removed from the study after period 2 due to health problems unrelated to treatment, resulting in an incomplete 6 × 6 Latin square design. Barley grain-based diets were formulated using BarS or wheat STR to alter uNDF (7.1% vs. 8.5% DM) with FI rates of 5%, 10%, or 15% of DM. There were limited interactions between the forage type and FI. DM intake was not affected (P ≥ 0.10) by forage type or FI. Use of STR vs. BarS increased uNDF intake (P < 0.001). Increasing FI increased (P < 0.001) uNDF intake for those fed 15% forage. Ruminal pH was not affected (P ≥ 0.10) by forage type; however, cattle fed 5% FI had lesser (P = 0.017) mean ruminal pH and maximum pH (P = 0.018) than those fed 10% and 15% of forage. The total SCFA concentration was not affected by forage type (P = 0.84) but cattle fed the 5% FI rate had lesser (P < 0.001) molar proportion of acetate when compared with cattle fed 10% and 15% forage. Increasing the FI rate decreased the molar proportion of propionate (P < 0.001). Feeding STR relative to BarS decreased (P = 0.041) the reticulo-ruminal contraction duration. In contrast, cattle fed the 10% and 15% FI rates had a greater (P = 0.028) contraction frequency with lower (P = 0.048) contraction area than those fed 5% forage. Plasma glucose, serum insulin, and serum amyloid A were not affected by forage type or FI rate (P ≥ 0.10). Cattle fed 15% forage had lesser (P = 0.040) concentration of serum haptoglobin when compared with cattle fed 5% or 10% forage. In conclusion, forage type used to affect the dietary uNDF concentration, and FI rate act independently suggesting that the provision of STR to increase uNDF reduces reticulo-ruminal contraction duration and total tract permeability but may not affect ruminal pH. Increasing the FI increased dietary uNDF, stabilized ruminal pH, stimulated more frequent reticulo-ruminal contractions, and may decrease the permeability of the gastrointestinal tract and systemic inflammation.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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