MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542969286 · doi:10.2527/2006.8461489x

Methane emissions from beef cattle: Effects of fumaric acid, essential oil, and canola oil1

2006· article· en· W1542969286 on OpenAlexaff
K. A. Beauchemin, S. M. McGinn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFumaric acidAnimal scienceChemistryBeef cattleCanolaPropionateMethaneLatin squareAgronomyFood scienceRumenFermentationBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to identify feed additives that reduce enteric methane emissions from cattle. We measured methane emissions, total tract digestibility (using chromic oxide), and ruminal fermentation (4 h after feeding) in growing beef cattle fed a diet supplemented with various additives. The experiment was designed as a replicated 4 x 4 Latin square with 21-d periods and was conducted using 16 Angus heifers (initial BW of 260 +/- 32 kg). Treatments were: control (no additive), fumaric acid (175 g/d) with sodium bicarbonate (75 g/d), essential oil and spice extract (1 g/d), or canola oil (4.6% of DMI). The basal diet consisted of 75% whole-crop barley silage, 19% steam-rolled barley, and 6% supplement (DM basis). Four large chambers (2 animals fed the same diet per chamber) were equipped to measure methane emissions for 3 d each period. Adding canola oil to the diet decreased (P = 0.009) total daily methane emissions by 32% and tended (P = 0.09) to decrease methane emissions as a percentage of gross energy intake by 21%. However, much of the reduction in methane emissions was due to decreased (P < 0.05) feed intake and lower (P < 0.05) total tract digestibility of DM and fiber. Digestibility of all nutrients was also lowered (P < 0.05) by feeding essential oil, but there were no effects on ruminal fermentation or methane emissions. In contrast, adding fumaric acid to the diet increased total VFA concentration (P = 0.03), increased propionate proportions (P = 0.01), and decreased the acetate:propionate ratio (P = 0.002), but there was no measurable effect on methane emissions. The study demonstrates that canola oil can be used to reduce methane losses from cattle, but animal performance may be compromised due to lower feed intake and decreased fiber digestibility. Essential oils had no effect on methane emissions, whereas fumaric acid caused potentially beneficial changes in ruminal fermentation but no measurable reductions in methane emissions.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations379
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207