MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392449252 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae060

Effect of continuous or intermittent feeding of ergot contaminated grain in a mash or pelleted form on the performance and health of feedlot beef steers

2024· article· en· W4392449252 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew R Reynolds, Kim Stanford, Daniela M Meléndez, K. S. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, Tim A. McAllister, Barry Blakley, J. J. McKinnon, Gabriel O Ribeiro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaBeef Cattle Research CouncilUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsFeedlotSilageAnimal scienceMarbled meatBeef cattleBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the effect of feeding ergot contaminated grain continuously or intermittently through backgrounding (BG) and finishing (FN) in a mash or pelleted supplement on the growth performance, health and welfare parameters, and carcass characteristics of feedlot beef steers. Sixty black Angus steers (300 ± 29.4 kg BW) were used in a complete randomized 238-d study. Steers were stratified by weight and randomly assigned to four different diets (15 steers/treatment) and individually housed. Treatments included: (1) control [CON; no added ergot alkaloids (EA)], (2) continuous ergot mash (CEM; fed continuously at 2 mg total EA/kg of DM), (3) intermittent ergot mash (IEM; fed at 2 mg total EA/kg of DM, during the first week of each 21-d period and CON for the remaining 2 wk, this feeding pattern was repeated in each period), and (4) intermittent ergot pellet (IEP; fed at 2 mg of total EA/kg of DM as a pellet during the first week of each 21-d period and CON for the remaining 2 wk as described for IEM). Steers were fed barley based BG diets containing 40% concentrate:60% silage (DM basis) for 84 d (four 21-d periods), transitioned over 28 d (no ergot fed) to an FN diet (90% concentrate:10% silage DM basis) and fed for 126 d (six 21-d periods) before slaughter. In the BG phase, steer DMI (P < 0.01, 7.45 vs. 8.05 kg/d) and ADG (P < 0.01) were reduced for all EA diets compared to CON. The CEM fed steers had lower ADG (P < 0.01, 0.735 vs. 0.980 kg) and shrunk final BW (P < 0.01, 350 vs. 366 kg) than CON. CEM had lower gain:feed (P < 0.07, 0.130 vs. 0.142) than CON. In the FN phase, steer DMI (P < 0.01, 9.95 vs. 11.05 kg/d) and ADG (P = 0.04) were also decreased for all EA fed steers compared to CON. Total shrunk BW gain (P = 0.03, 202.5 vs. 225.2 kg), final BW (P = 0.03, 617.9 vs. 662.2 kg), and carcass weight (P = 0.06) decreased for all EA fed steers compared to CON. The percentage of AAA carcasses decreased for all EA fed steers (P < 0.01, 46.7 vs. 93.3%) compared to CON. EA fed steers had increased rectal temperatures (P < 0.01, 39.8 vs. 39.4 °C) compared to CON. Pelleting ergot contaminated grain did not reduce the impact of ergot alkaloids on any of the measured parameters during BG or FN. Continuously or intermittently feeding ergot contaminated diets (2 mg total EA/kg of DM) significantly reduced intake, growth performance, and carcass weight, with minimal impact on blood parameters in feedlot steers. Pelleting was not an effective method of reducing ergot toxicity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207