73 The effect of feed sulfur and water sulfate on ruminal hydrogen sulfide concentrations and gastrointestinal tract permeability in beef heifers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Consumption of high-sulfate water and high-sulfur feed by cattle results in the production of ruminal hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S) which is a known risk factor for the development of sulfur-induced polioencephalomalacia in ruminants. However, it is unclear whether water sulfate or feed sulfur contribute more to elevation of ruminal H2S gas concentrations. This study evaluated the effect of feed sulfur and water sulfate on feed and water intake, ruminal H2S gas concentration, ruminal fermentation, and permeability of the gastrointestinal tract. Eight ruminally cannulated Simmental-cross heifers (body weight 531 ± 38.1 kg) were used in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin square design with a 2 × 2 factorial treatment arrangement. Main factors included low (LW; 2689 ± 98.0 mg/L) or high (HW; 3653 ± 165.2 mg/L) water sulfate and diets formulated to contain low (LF; 0.3% S) or high (HF; 0.4% S on a DM basis) sulfur. Dietary sulfur was manipulated using equal quantities of dried distiller’s grain with differing S contents. Dry matter intake, water intake, reticulo-ruminal pool size, ruminal pH and short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) concentrations, and H2S gas concentrations were evaluated. Additionally, total-tract and post-ruminal gastrointestinal permeability were assessed. Data were analysed using the mixed procedure of SAS with fixed effects of period, water sulfate, feed sulfur, and the feed × water interaction, with random effects of heifer and period by square, and ruminal pH and SCFA were analyzed including time as a repeated measure. Dry matter intake and water intake were not affected by water sulfate, feed sulfur, or their interaction (P≥0.23). Mean ruminal H2S gas concentration and area under the curve were greater for HF (P< 0.01) than LF, and greater for HW (P≤0.02) than LW. The area under the curve for ruminal H2S gas tended to be less (feed × water, P=0.08) for LFLW than all other treatments. Ruminal pH tended to be less (P≤0.08) for LF than HF, and the total SCFA concentration was greater (P≤0.02) for LF than HF. There was no effect of water sulfate on ruminal pH or total SCFA concentration. Feeding LF reduced (P< 0.01) the molar proportion of acetate and increased (P< 0.01) the molar proportion of propionate relative to HF. Total reticulo-ruminal digesta weight was not different (P≥0.43) but ruminal DM concentration was greater (P=0.05) for LF than HF. Total-tract (P≥0.12) and post-ruminal (P≥0.18) permeability were not affected. While neither water sulfate or feed sulfur reduced feed or water intake, or altered gastrointestinal permeability, high sulfur in feed and high sulfate in water independently increased ruminal H2S concentration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".