MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396987632 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae139

Effects of flavoring additives on feed intake, growth performance, temperament, and markers of immune function for newly received feedlot cattle

2024· article· en· W4396987632 on OpenAlexaff
Mustaq Ahmad, Yolande M. Seddon, Marta Blanch, G.B. Penner, D. Moya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeedlotTemperamentImmune systemAnimal scienceFood scienceFunction (biology)BiologyPsychologyImmunologyGeneticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ninety Angus × Hereford steers (259.9 ± 36.18 kg body weight [BW]) were used in a 56-d experiment to assess the effects of flavoring additives on feed intake, and stress and immune response of newly received feedlot cattle. Steers were homogenously distributed by BW into six pens equipped with an individual feed intake monitoring system, and pen was randomly assigned to one of three treatments (15 heads per pen; 30 heads per treatment): a standard feedlot receiving diet (CT), or the same diet with a flavoring additive comprised of either sweeteners (Luctarom Feedlot, SW) or a mix of basic tastes (Luctarom Feedlot Mix, MX) at 1 kg/mT. Pens were equipped with a feed intake monitoring system, while BW, chute behavior, flight speed, blood and saliva samples were collected bi-weekly, and hair samples were collected at 4-wk intervals during the study. Data were analyzed using a mixed-effects model for a pen study using individual animal records with repeated measures. There was a treatment × week interaction (P < 0.01) where meal duration was greater in SW steers than MX and CT on week 3, and then CT on weeks 7 and 8. A trend for treatment × week interaction (P = 0.06) showed that the number of visits per day tended to be greater in SW than MX steers on weeks 4 and 5, and it tended to be greater in SW than MX and CT on week 5. The concentration of IL-6 was greater (P < 0.01) on days 1 and 28 than on day 14. The IgM concentration was greater (P < 0.01) on day 1 compared to days 14, 28, and 56. The concentration of haptoglobin was greater (P < 0.01) on 14 than days 28, 42, and 56, and it was greater (P < 0.01) on day 1 than days 42 and 56. The concentration of serum amyloid A was greater (P < 0.01) on day 1 compared to the rest of sampling days. Fibrinogen concentration was greater (P < 0.01) on day 1 compared to days 14 and 42. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was greater (P < 0.01) on days 42 and 56 compared to days 1 and 28, and greater (P < 0.01) on day 14 compared to day 28. Hair and saliva cortisol concentrations were lower (P < 0.01) on day 56 compared to days 1 and 28, respectively. The use of flavoring additives, particularly when based on sweeteners (SW), caused some changes in the feeding pattern of newly received steers. These changes, however, were not consistent over the 56-d feeding period and were not accompanied by a change in growth performance, temperament, biomarkers of stress, inflammation, or immune function.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
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)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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