Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36638278›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2023

Effect of physically effective neutral detergent fiber and undigested neutral detergent fiber on eating behavior, ruminal fermentation and motility, barrier function, blood metabolites, and total tract digestibility in finishing cattle.

Murillo Ceola Stefano Pereira, Karen A Beauchemin, Tim A McAllister, Wenzhu Z Yang, Katharine M Wood, Gregory Brent Penner

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Murillo Ceola Stefano PereiraDepartment of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada.
Karen A BeaucheminAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research and Development Centre, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada.
Tim A McAllisterAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research and Development Centre, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada.
Wenzhu Z YangAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research and Development Centre, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9453-924X
Katharine M WoodDepartment of Animal Biosciences, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1741-7000
Gregory Brent PennerDepartment of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6396-2130
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada · CAUniversity of Saskatchewan · CAUniversity of Guelph · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated the effects of physically effective neutral detergent fiber (peNDF) and undigested neutral detergent fiber (uNDF) on eating behavior, ruminal fermentation and motility, barrier function, blood metabolites, and total tract nutrient digestibility for finishing cattle. Six Simmental heifers (668 ± 28.4 kg BW) were used in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square (21 d periods) balanced for carry-over effects. Treatments included a control (CON; Table 1) with no forage peNDF and minimal uNDF (peNDF: 0.0%, and uNDF: 4.88 ± 0.01; 95.15% barley grain, 4.51% vitamin and mineral supplement, and 0.34% urea on a DM basis). Pelleted wheat straw (PELL) was included at 10% of dietary DM by replacing barley grain to provide added uNDF but no forage peNDF (peNDF: 0.00%, and uNDF: 6.78 ± 0.02%). Finally, chopped wheat straw (STR) was included as a replacement for pelleted wheat straw to provide forage peNDF and uNDF (peNDF: 1.74 ± 0.06%, and uNDF: 6.86 ± 0.03%). Dry matter intake was not affected (P = 0.93) by treatments. Cattle fed CON spent less time ruminating (P = 0.010) and had less meals/d (P = 0.035) when compared with cattle fed STR, with those fed PELL being intermediate but not different from other treatments. Cattle fed CON had lesser ruminal pH (P = 0.020), and a greater duration that pH was < 5.5 (P = 0.020) as compared to cattle fed STR, with those fed PELL being intermediate but not different. Cattle fed CON and PELL had greater total short-chain fatty acid concentration (P = 0.003) and molar proportion of propionate (P < 0.001) when compared with cattle fed STR. Cattle fed STR had greater (P = 0.010) total ruminal pool size when compared with cattle fed CON and PELL. Cattle fed CON had greater (P = 0.043) duration between ruminal contractions when compared with cattle fed STR, with those fed PELL being intermediate. Cattle fed CON had greater serum amyloid A (P = 0.003) and haptoglobin (P < 0.001) concentration when compared with the other treatments. Cattle fed CON had greater dry matter (P < 0.001) digestibility when compared with the other treatments. In conclusion, inclusion of PELL and STR impacted eating behavior, but only STR affected ruminal fermentation, ruminal motility, systemic inflammation, and total tract nutrient digestibility in finishing cattle. These results are interpreted to suggest that the combination of peNDF and uNDF may be better than uNDF alone to adequately capture biological effects of NDF in high-concentrate diets.

Indexed as

DetergentsDietary FiberAnimal FeedAnimalsCattleDietDigestionFeeding BehaviorFemaleFermentationHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationRumenTriticumDetergentsDietary Fiberacute phase proteinfeedlotfibergastrointestinal permeabilityrequirement

Identifiers

PMID36638278
PMCPMC9910395
OpenAlexW4315929007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.