English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The objective of this experiment was to determine if titanium dioxide (TiO2) dosed through an automated head chamber system (GreenFeed; C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA) is an acceptable method to measure fecal output. The GreenFeed used on this experiment had a 2-hopper bait dispensing system, where hopper 1 contained alfalfa pellets marked with 1% titanium dioxide (TiO2) and hopper 2 contained unmarked alfalfa pellets. Eleven heifers (BW = 394 ± 18.7 kg) grazing a common pasture were stratified by BW and then randomized to either 1) dosed with TiO2-marked pellets by hand feeding (HFD; n = 6) or 2) dosed with TiO2-marked pellets by the GreenFeed (GFFD; n = 5) for 19 d. During the morning (0800), all heifers were offered a pelleted, high-CP supplement at 0.25% of BW in individual feeding stanchions. The HFD heifers also received 32 g of TiO2-marked pellets at morning feeding, whereas the GFFD heifers received 32 g of unmarked pellets. The GFFD heifers received a single aliquot (32 ± 1.6 g; mean ± SD) of marked pellets at their first visit to the GreenFeed each day with all subsequent 32-g aliquots providing unmarked pellets; HFD heifers received only unmarked pellets. Starting on d 15, fecal samples were collected via rectal grab at feeding and every 12 h for 5 d. A two-one sided t-test method was used to determine agreement and it was determined that the fecal output estimates by HFD and GFFD methods were similar (P = 0.04). There was a difference (P &amp;lt; 0.01; Bartlett’s test for homogenous variances) in variability between the dosing methods for HFD and GFFD (SD = 0.1 and 0.7, respectively). This difference in fecal output variability may have been due to variability of dosing times-of-day for the GFFD heifers (0615 ± 6.2 h) relative to the constant dosing time-of-day for HFD and constant 0800 and 2000 sampling times-of-day for all animals. This research has highlighted the potential for dosing cattle with an external marker through a GreenFeed configured with two (or more) feed hoppers because estimated fecal output means were similar; however, consideration of the increased variability of the fecal output estimates is needed for future experimental designs.

Technical note: using an automated head chamber system to administer an external marker to estimate fecal output by grazing beef cattle