MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400582344 · doi:10.1093/tas/txae105

Determination of relative bioavailability of copper from copper glycinate in growing beef steers

2024· article· en· W4400582344 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacob A Henderson, Emma K Niedermayer-Conway, Stephanie L Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioavailabilityDry matterAnimal scienceCopperChemistryBeef cattleSilageCrossbreedSulfurBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Chelated copper (Cu) sources, such as Cu glycinate (CuGly), may be more bioavailable relative to Cu sulfate (CuSO4) when fed to ruminants under antagonistic pressure. The objective of this study was to determine the bioavailability of CuGly (GemStone Cu; Phibro Animal Health) relative to CuSO4 in steers fed a diet supplemented with 0.3% sulfur and 2 mg molybdenum/kg of dry matter (DM). Sixty Angus crossbred steers (n = 12 per treatment) averaging 288 ± 4.85 kg were enrolled in a 90-d study and fed a corn silage-based diet with one of five Cu supplementation strategies, including no supplemental Cu (CON), 5 or 10 mg supplemental Cu from CuSO4/kg DM, and 5 or 10 mg supplemental Cu from CuGly/kg DM. Steers were housed in pens equipped with GrowSafe feed bunks (GrowSafe Systems Ltd., Airdire, AB, Canada), with six steers per pen. Growth performance, liver Cu, and plasma Cu were analyzed in the MIXED procedure of SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst. Inc, Cary, NC) with orthogonal contrasts to compare CON vs. 5 mg Cu/kg DM, CON vs. 10 mg Cu/kg DM, 5 vs. 10 mg Cu/kg DM, and CuSO4 vs. CuGly. Copper indices were regressed against Cu intake and slopes were calculated using the GLM procedure SAS. Dietary Cu supplementation did not affect steer body weights on days 0, 28, 56, or 90 (P ≥ 0.52), average daily gain, dry matter intake, or gain:feed (P ≥ 0.36). Final plasma Cu concentration did not differ between CON vs. 5 mg Cu/kg DM (P = 0.79), CON vs. 10 mg Cu/kg DM (P = 0.65), or 5 vs. 10 mg Cu/kg DM (P = 0.39). Steers receiving CuSO4 tended to have greater final plasma Cu concentrations than those receiving CuGly (P = 0.08). Initial liver Cu concentration averaged 374 mg Cu/kg DM, which is considered highly adequate. No steers reached deficient Cu status by the end of the 90-d period. Control steers had lesser final liver Cu concentrations than supplemented steers (P ≤ 0.04). Steers receiving 10 mg supplemental Cu/kg DM had greater liver Cu concentrations than those receiving 5 mg supplemental Cu/kg DM (P = 0.01). Copper source had no effect on final liver Cu concentrations (P = 0.57) and based on liver Cu and Cu intake the bioavailability of CuGly was similar to CuSO4 (115%; P = 0.27). The initially high Cu status and the fact that cattle did not become Cu deficient may have impacted the relative bioavailability results, and more research is needed to investigate the role initial Cu status and antagonistic pressure play in the bioavailability of chelated Cu sources.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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