MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402541299 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.194

483 DMI, gastrointestinal tract fermentation and permeability, and white blood cell responses in beef heifers provided post-ruminal yeast cell wall extract following feed restriction

2024· article· en· W4402541299 on OpenAlexaff
Wyatt D Armes, Clothilde Villot, Eric Chevaux, Philip Griebel, T. Mutsvangwa, Natacha Hogan, G.B. Penner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFermentationRumenYeastGastrointestinal tractBiologyWhite blood cellFood scienceBiochemistryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objectives of this study were to 1) evaluate gastrointestinal fermentation characteristics and permeability, and white blood cell concentrations as beef heifers recovered from a feed restriction (FR) challenge, and 2) determine whether post-ruminal provision of a yeast cell wall extract (YCW) modulated responses. Ruminally cannulated beef heifers (n = 8) were used in a 2 × 2 crossover design. Treatments (TRT) included an abomasal infusion of a placebo (PLC; maltodextrin) or YCW derived from Saccharomyces cerevisiae (2 g/dose) infused at 0600 and 1800 h. Heifers were subject to 5-d of FR (offering 30% of ad libitum DMI) followed by five 5-d recovery phases (REC1, REC2, REC3, REC4, and REC5). Daily DMI, and rumen, fecal, and blood samples were collected on d 5 of FR, REC1, REC3, and REC5 with an additional collection on d 2 of REC1. Total gastrointestinal and post-ruminal permeability were measured using a ruminal dose of Cr-EDTA and an abomasal dose of Co-EDTA, respectively, during FR, REC1, REC3, and REC5 with concurrent urine collection. Data were analyzed to determine the effects of YCW provision, day, and the 2-way interaction. There were no TRT or TRT×day effects for any variables except DMI (interaction, P = 0.04), where DMI did not differ during the FR challenge; however, heifers provided YCW had a greater increase by REC1 compared with PLC heifers without any means differing. DMI progressively increased from FR, to REC1, REC2, and REC5. Ruminal acetate concentration increased (P < 0.01) from FR (45.4 mmol/L) to REC1 d5 (60.1 mmol/L) and increased further to REC3 (67.3 mmol/L) with no change thereafter (68.3 mmol/L in REC5). Ruminal propionate concentration increased (P < 0.01) from FR (14.5 mmol/L) to REC1 d2 (27.7 mmol/L) and was not different thereafter. Similarly, butyrate concentration increased (P < 0.01) from FR (7.9 mmol/L) to REC1 (d 5; 15.0 mmol/L) and was not different thereafter. Fecal acetate, propionate, and butyrate concentrations were not affected by day (P ≥ 0.12). Total gastrointestinal and post-ruminal permeability were greatest during FR (P < 0.01; 2.6% and 2.2% of the infused marker was excreted in urine, respectively) and decreased to 1.6% and 1.1%, respectively, in REC3 followed by an increase in REC5 for total (2.0% of infused) but not post-ruminal (1.0% of infused) permeability. The concentration of neutrophils (P < 0.01) was greatest on REC1 d2 (4.84 ×106 μmol/mL) and eosinophil concentration (P < 0.01) was greatest during FR (0.53 ×106 μmol/mL), least on d 2 of REC1 and increased on d 5 of REC1 but was not different thereafter. WBC (P < 0.01) gradually decreased (P = 0.02) from FR and REC1 d2 to REC3 and REC5. Post-ruminal provision of YCW may accelerate increases in DMI early in the recovery from FR, yet treatment did not modulate ruminal or fecal SCFA, blood concentrations, or gastrointestinal permeability.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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