MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402541774 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.421

355 Determining the bioavailability of copper carbonate (Emerald-C) and tribasic copper chloride relative to copper sulfate in feedlot steers under moderate antagonistic pressure

2024· article· en· W4402541774 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacob A Henderson, Stephanie L Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopperFeedlotBioavailabilityChemistryEmeraldCopper sulfateChlorideCarbonateSulfateInorganic chemistryMetallurgyAnimal scienceMineralogyMaterials scienceBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Copper (Cu) from Cu sulfate (CuSO4) may be more susceptible to antagonism when fed in cattle diets high in sulfur and molybdenum, but other Cu supplements may be better able to avoid this. The objective of this study was to determine the bioavailability of Cu carbonate (CuCO3; Emerald-C, Old Bridge Minerals, Old Bridge, NJ) and tribasic Cu chloride (TBCC; Intellibond-C, Selko, Indianapolis, IN) relative to CuSO4 when fed to steers supplemented with 2 mg Mo/kg DM and 0.1% S. Angus crossbred steers [n = 84; body weight (BW) = 282 ± 19.3 kg] were enrolled (n = 12 per treatment) in a 96-d study and fed a corn-silage based diet with one of seven Cu supplementation strategies: no supplemental Cu (CON), 5 or 10 mg supplemental Cu/kg DM from CuSO4, 5 or 10 mg supplemental Cu/kg DM from TBCC, or 5 or 10 mg supplemental Cu/kg DM from CuCO3. Steers were housed in pens equipped with GrowSafe feed bunks (GrowSafe Systems Ltd., Airdire, AB, Canada) with six steers per pen. The GLM procedure of SAS 9.4 was used to determine the bioavailability of CuCO3 and TBCC relative to CuSO4 using both liver and plasma Cu. The MIXED procedure of SAS was used to analyze liver Cu, plasma Cu, and growth performance data. Contrasts compared CON vs. 5 mg/kg, CON vs. 10 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg vs. 10 mg/kg, CuCO3 vs. CuSO4, TBCC vs. CuSO4, and CuCO3 vs. TBCC. The bioavailability of CuCO3 relative to CuSO4 based on liver and plasma Cu was 89 (P < 0.01) and 133% (P = 0.21), respectively. The bioavailability of TBCC relative to CuSO4 based on liver and plasma Cu was 88 (P < 0.01) and 100% (P = 0.82), respectively. Over the 96-d trial, liver Cu decreased 66% in CON, from 74 to 21 mg Cu/kg DM. Steers receiving CuCO3 had greater plasma Cu concentrations than those receiving TBCC on d 56 (P = 0.05) but were similar by d 96 (P = 0.39). Copper supplemented steers had greater dry matter intake (DMI) than CON (P = 0.01). Steers supplemented with CuCO3 had greater DMI than those receiving TBCC (P = 0.05). Steers receiving TBCC tended to have greater gain:feed than those receiving CuSO4 (P = 0.08), but gain:feed did not differ between CON and supplemented treatments (P ≥ 0.6). In conclusion, CuCO3 and TBCC may be less available to steers under moderate antagonistic pressure based on liver Cu, but Emerald-C CuCO3 may result in greater Cu in circulation. More research is needed to evaluate the impact of feeding CuCO3 on systemic Cu metabolism and how factors such as initial Cu status impact relative bioavailability results.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→