MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388528831 · doi:10.1093/jas/skad281.754

PSXIII-13 Effect of Supplementation of Red Osier Dogwood Extract on Feed Intake and Growth Performance of Newly Weaned Beef Calves

2023· article· en· W4388528831 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wenzhu Yang, E. J. McGeough, Kim Ominski, Lingyun Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNatural product bioactivities and synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of ManitobaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeedlotDPPHResidue (chemistry)Randomized block designAnimal scienceChemistryAntioxidantFeed conversion ratioBeef cattleDry matterFood scienceSilageCrossbreedBiologyBody weightAgronomyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Red osier dogwood (ROD) is a Canadian native shrub plant that is rich in phenolic compounds with antimicrobial and antioxidant properties. The high phenolic compounds with antimicrobial and antioxidant properties would be beneficial to reduce oxidative stress, hence improve animal growth performance when animals are stressed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of feeding ROD extract and the residue after extraction to newly weaned calves on feed intake and growth performance. Eighty crossbred Angus steers [initial body weight (BW), 254 ± 5.4 kg] were used and housed in individual feedlot pen. The experiment was a randomized complete block design in five treatments (16 steers/treatment). Five treatments were: 1) Control (without ROD); 2) 20 g/d ROD extract (RODLow); 3) 40 g/d ROD extract (RODHigh); 4) 100 g/d ROD residue (RODRes); and 5) 330 mg monensin/d (MON). The MON was used as positive control because it is commonly fed to feedlot cattle to improve feed efficiency and animal health. The experiment diet consisted of 60% silage and 40% concentrate (DM basis) and fed for 84 d. The DPPH free radical scavenging activity of ROD extracts and the residue after extraction were determined. The high DPPH scavenging was observed for both ROD extracts (60.6 ± 4.7%) and residue (80.6 ± 1.7%) at the concentration of 0.5 mg/mL. Dry matter (DM) intake (kg/d) overall did not differ between control (6.44) and ROD supplemented calves (average, 6.27), whereas the DM intake tended (P = 0.10) to be greater with ROD extract (4.97 kg/d) than control (4.56 kg/d) at the first 28 d. The final BW averaged daily gain and feed efficiency were not affected by increasing dose of ROD extract (0, 20, 40 g/d) or by adding 100 g/d ROD residue. The calves fed MON had reduced (P = 0.04) DM intake (5.72 vs. 6.32 kg/d) and decreased (P = 0.07) daily gain (0.81 vs. 0.94 kg/d) than other treatments. Fecal pH ranged from 6.98 to 6.17 and did not differ among treatments. These results indicate that feeding ROD extract or its residue to newly weaned calves may increase feed intake when the animals are stressed; however, its effect on growth performance and feed efficiency is not apparent under current feeding conditions.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicNatural product bioactivities and synthesisFrench-language works237,207