Effects of sunflower seed supplementation and different dietary protein concentrations on the ciliate protozoa population dynamics in the rumen of sheep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of feeding a linoleic acid-rich sunflower seed supplement and different levels of dietary protein on protozoal numbers and fermentation parameters in rumen fluid were determined in an 84-d experiment with rumen-cannulated sheep. The experiment comprised four treatments, two with low crude protein diets [12% of dietary dry matter (DM)] and two with high protein diets (16% of DM). On both low and high protein diets, one treatment was without (Control) and one with the sunflower seed (high linoleic acid variety 6150) supplement (14% of dietary DM). The four diets used were based on corn silage and corn grain, and soybean meal was used to achieve the desired concentration of dietary protein. The sheep were fully fed each morning and rumen fluid samples were taken 2 h later on various days of the experiment (daily during the first 14 d for enumeration of protozoa). In addition, rumen fluid was sampled at different hours after feeding on day 43 of the experiment. Results showed a protozoa-decreasing effect (P < 0.001) of sunflower seeds causing a decline in protozoa numbers after 2 d of supplementation. The effect of protein on protozoa numbers was dependent on the presence of sunflower seed supplement. Measurements on day 43 showed increased protozoa numbers (P < 0.05) and ammonia nitrogen concentrations (P < 0.001) due to higher dietary protein, and decreased protozoal numbers (P < 0.05) and ammonia nitrogen (P < 0.001) due to the sunflower seed supplement, without significant effects (P > 0.05) on volatile fatty acid concentrations. The linoleic acid-rich sunflower seed supplement was highly effective in reducing both protozoa numbers and ammonia nitrogen concentrations in rumen fluid. Key words: Rumen ciliate protozoa, sunflower seeds, dietary protein, sheep
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".