MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999125464 · doi:10.2527/jas.2005-652

Efficacy of ionophores in cattle diets for mitigation of enteric methane1

2006· article· en· W1999125464 on OpenAlexaff
Haiyang Guan, K. M. Wittenberg, Kim Ominski, Denis O. Krause

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonensinLasalocidIonophorePropionateSalinomycinAnimal scienceChemistryBiologyBiochemistryAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Use of ionophores in cattle diets has been proposed as a strategy for mitigation of enteric CH4 emissions. Short- and long-term effects of feeding a single ionophore (monensin) or rotation of 2 ionophores (monensin and lasalocid) on enteric CH4 emissions were evaluated in 36 Angus yearling steers (328 +/- 24.9 kg of BW) over a 16-wk period. Steers were randomly assigned to 6 dietary treatments of 6 steers each. The 6 diets were low-concentrate without ionophore supplementation, low-concentrate with monensin supplementation, low-concentrate with a 2-wk rotation of monensin and lasalocid supplementation, high-concentrate without ionophore supplementation, high-concentrate with monensin supplementation, and high-concentrate with a 2-wk rotation of monensin and lasalocid supplementation. Daily enteric CH4 emissions, as measured using the SF(6) tracer gas technique, ranged from 54.7 to 369.3 L/steer daily. Supplementing ionophores decreased (P < 0.05) enteric CH4 emissions, expressed as liters per kilogram of DMI or percentage of GE intake, by 30% for the first 2 wk and by 27% for the first 4 wk, for cattle receiving the high-concentrate and low-concentrate diets, respectively. Cattle fed a rotation of ionophores did not (P > 0.05) exhibit a greater decrease and did not (P > 0.05) have a longer period of depressed enteric CH4 emissions compared with cattle receiving monensin only. Ionophore supplementation did not (P > 0.05) alter total ruminal fluid VFA concentration; however, the acetate:propionate ratio and ammonia-N concentration in ruminal fluid were decreased (P < 0.001) from the time that ionophores were introduced to the time they were removed from the diets. Both monensin and the rotation of monensin and lasalocid decreased (P < 0.001) total ciliate protozoal populations by 82.5% in the first 2 wk and by 76.8% in the first 4 wk during which they were supplemented in the high-concentrate and low-concentrate diets, respectively. Original ciliate protozoal populations were restored by the fourth and sixth week of supplementation when cattle were fed the high- or low-concentrate diets, respectively. No significant change was observed thereafter. These data suggest that the effects of ionophores on enteric CH(4) production are related to ciliate protozoal populations and that ciliate protozoal populations can adapt to the ionophores present in either low- or high-concentrate diets. Rotation of monensin and lasalocid did not (P > 0.05) prevent ciliate protozoal adaptation to ionophores.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations301
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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