Effects of volatile fatty acid supply on their absorption and on water kinetics in the rumen of sheep sustained by intragastric infusions1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three sheep fitted with a ruminal cannula and an abomasal catheter were used to study water kinetics and absorption of VFA infused continuously into the rumen. The effects of changing VFA concentrations in the rumen by shifting VFA infusion rates were investigated in an experiment with a 3 x 3 Latin square design. On experimental days, the animals received the basal infusion rate of VFA (271 mmol/h) during the first 2 h. Each animal then received VFA at a different rate (135, 394, or 511 mmol/h) for the next 7.5 h. Using soluble markers (polyethylene glycol and Cr-EDTA), ruminal volume, liquid outflow, apparent water absorption, and VFA absorption rates were estimated. There were no significant effects of VFA infusion rate on ruminal volume and water kinetics. As the VFA infusion rate was increased, VFA concentration and osmolality in the rumen were increased and pH was decreased. There was a biphasic response of liquid outflow to changes in the total VFA concentration in the rumen, as both variables increased together up to a total VFA concentration of 80.1 mM, whereas, beyond that concentration, liquid outflow remained stable at an average rate of 407 mL/h. There were significant linear (P = 0.003) and quadratic (P = 0.001) effects of VFA infusion rate on the VFA absorption rate, confirming that VFA absorption in the rumen is mainly a concentration-dependent process. The proportion of total VFA supplied that was absorbed in the rumen was 0.845 (0.822, 0.877, and 0.910 for acetate, propionate, and butyrate, respectively). The molar proportions of acetate, propionate, and butyrate absorbed were affected by the level of VFA infusion in the rumen, indicating that this level affected to a different extent the absorption of the different acids.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".