Effect of a surfactant and exogenous enzymes on digestibility of feed and on growth performance and carcass traits of lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of Tween 80 on the stability and substrate binding capacity of two commercially available enzyme preparations were studied in vitro. After 1 wk of incubation, endoglucanase activity was higher (P < 0.05) in the presence of 0.02 or 0.2% (vol vol −1 ) Tween 80 than without this surfactant. Tween 80 increased (P < 0.05) protein binding both to filter paper and to cotton fibres. Digestibility and feedlot experiments were conducted with Dorset and Romanov × Suffolk lambs, respectively, given forage- and concentrate-based diets. The diets were untreated or sprayed with the enzyme preparations, Tween 80 or a mixture of both. With the concentrate diet, treatment with enzymes + surfactant reduced (P < 0.05) intake of feed dry matter and N, acid detergent fibre digestibility, N digestion and microbial N production, relative to treatment with either additive alone. Treating the concentrate diet with enzymes increased (P < 0.05) N retention (g d −1 ) by the lambs, as compared to untreated diet. With the forage diet, neutral detergent fibre digestibility was higher with Tween 80 alone than with enzymes + surfactant. In the feedlot experiment, treating the forage diet with surfactant reduced (P < 0.05) dry matter intake and daily gain, relative to untreated diet, and increased (P < 0.05) the number of days to finish. Feed conversion efficiency (gain feed −1 ) of lambs fed the concentrate diet was lower (P < 0.05) when the diet was treated with surfactant than with enzymes. Treating the concentrate diet with enzymes + surfactant increased (P < 0.05) the number of days required to finish the lambs. Although Tween 80 appeared to increase the stability and substrate binding capacity of enzymes in the laboratory, it did not enhance the effects of the enzymes on nutrient digestibility or growth performance in animal feeding studies. Key words: Enzymes, surfactants, sheep, lamb, digestion, growth
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".