Effects of plants and essential oils on ruminal in vitro batch culture methane production and fermentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tekippe, J. A., Hristov, A. N., Heyler, K. S., Zheljazkov, V. D., Ferreira, J. F. S., Cantrell, C. L. and Varga, G. A. 2012. Effects of plants and essential oils on ruminal in vitro batch culture methane production and fermentation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 395–408. In this study, plants (14) and essential oils (EO; 88) from plants that are naturalized to, or can be successfully grown in North America were evaluated in a batch culture in vitro screening experiments with ruminal fluid as potential anti-methanogenic additives for ruminant diets. Essential oils were tested at four inclusion levels: 0 (blank), 10, 50, and 100 mg L −1 and plants were tested at 313, 1250, 2500, and 5000 mg L −1 final incubation medium concentration. Compared with the blank, two of the EO increased acetate concentration (8 to 10%), 11 EO increased propionate concentration (9 to 23%), 10 EO increased butyrate concentration (24 to 29%), and three EO reduced methane production [20 to 30%; Anethum graveolens (dill weed oil), Lavandula latifolia, and Ocimum basilicum #7 accession]. Four EO decreased and one increased neutral detergent fiber (NDF) degradability. Three plants increased acetate concentration (8 to 12%), two increased propionate concentration (16%), and one (Origanum vulgare) decreased methane production (31%). Eight of the plants increased NDF degradability at various inclusion levels. Overall, these results indicate that some EO, or EO-producing plants could have a potential anti-methanogenic effect. Further research is needed to verify these results in vivo in long-term experiments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".