Effects of an exogenous enzyme preparation on microbial protein synthesis, enzyme activity and attachment to feed in the Rumen Simulation Technique (Rusitec)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of an exogenous enzyme preparation, the application method and feed type on ruminal fermentation and microbial protein synthesis were investigated using the rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). Steam-rolled barley grain and chopped alfalfa hay were sprayed with water (control, C), an enzyme preparation with a predominant xylanase activity (EF), or autoclaved enzyme (AEF) 24 h prior to feeding, or the enzyme was supplied in the buffer infused into the Rusitec (EI). Microbial N incorporation was measured using (15NH4)2SO4 in the buffer. Spent feed bags were pummelled mechanically in buffer to segregate the feed particle-associated (FPA) and feed particle-bound (FPB) bacterial fractions. Enzymes applied to feed reduced neutral-detergent fibre content, and increased the concentration of reducing sugars in barley grain, but not alfalfa hay. Ruminal cellulolytic bacteria were more numerous with EF than with C. Disappearance of DM from barley grain was higher with EF than with C, but alfalfa was unaffected by EF. Treatment EF increased incorporation of 15N into FPA and FPB fractions at 24 and 48 h. In contrast, AEF reduced the 24 h values, relative to C; AEF and C were similar at 48 h. Infused enzyme (EI) did not affect 15N incorporation. Xylanase activity in effluent was increased by EF and EI, compared to C, but not by AEF. Xylanase activity in FPA was higher at 48 h than at 24 h with all treatments; it was higher with EF than C at 24 and 48 h, but was not altered by AEF or EI. Applying enzymes onto feeds before feeding was more effective than dosing directly into the artificial rumen for increasing ruminal fibrolytic activity.
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".