Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36749584›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2023

Effect of forage types differing in undigested neutral detergent fiber concentration and forage inclusion rate on reticulo-ruminal motility and fermentation, total tract barrier function, and blood metabolites of finishing beef heifers.

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

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.
Wenzhu Z YangAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research and Development Centre, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9453-924X
Karen A BeaucheminAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research and Development Centre, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5070-4554
Timothy A McAllisterAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research and Development Centre, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada.
Katharine M WoodDepartment of Animal Biosciences, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1741-7000
Gregory B 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 forages (BarS vs. STR) that differ in the uNDF concentration and FI rate on ruminal fermentation, total tract barrier function, reticulo-ruminal motility, and blood metabolites of beef heifers. Six ruminally cannulated Hereford × Simmental heifers (699 ± 69.1 kg BW) were used in a 6 × 6 Latin square (26 d periods) with a 2 × 3 factorial treatment arrangement. However, 1 heifer was removed from the study after period 2 due to health problems unrelated to treatment, resulting in an incomplete 6 × 6 Latin square design. Barley grain-based diets were formulated using BarS or wheat STR to alter uNDF (7.1% vs. 8.5% DM) with FI rates of 5%, 10%, or 15% of DM. There were limited interactions between the forage type and FI. DM intake was not affected (P ≥ 0.10) by forage type or FI. Use of STR vs. BarS increased uNDF intake (P < 0.001). Increasing FI increased (P < 0.001) uNDF intake for those fed 15% forage. Ruminal pH was not affected (P ≥ 0.10) by forage type; however, cattle fed 5% FI had lesser (P = 0.017) mean ruminal pH and maximum pH (P = 0.018) than those fed 10% and 15% of forage. The total SCFA concentration was not affected by forage type (P = 0.84) but cattle fed the 5% FI rate had lesser (P < 0.001) molar proportion of acetate when compared with cattle fed 10% and 15% forage. Increasing the FI rate decreased the molar proportion of propionate (P < 0.001). Feeding STR relative to BarS decreased (P = 0.041) the reticulo-ruminal contraction duration. In contrast, cattle fed the 10% and 15% FI rates had a greater (P = 0.028) contraction frequency with lower (P = 0.048) contraction area than those fed 5% forage. Plasma glucose, serum insulin, and serum amyloid A were not affected by forage type or FI rate (P ≥ 0.10). Cattle fed 15% forage had lesser (P = 0.040) concentration of serum haptoglobin when compared with cattle fed 5% or 10% forage. In conclusion, forage type used to affect the dietary uNDF concentration, and FI rate act independently suggesting that the provision of STR to increase uNDF reduces reticulo-ruminal contraction duration and total tract permeability but may not affect ruminal pH. Increasing the FI increased dietary uNDF, stabilized ruminal pH, stimulated more frequent reticulo-ruminal contractions, and may decrease the permeability of the gastrointestinal tract and systemic inflammation.

Indexed as

DetergentsSilageAnimal FeedAnimalsCattleDietDigestionFemaleFermentationHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationRumenDetergentscattlefeedlotgastrointestinal permeabilityroughage inclusion

Identifiers

PMID36749584
PMCPMC9994589
OpenAlexW4319332868

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.