Use of dietary tea seeds to manipulate the rumen ciliate protozoa population in sheep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eighteen rumen cannulated sheep in three groups of six were supplemented with tea seeds at 0 (control), 3 or 6% of the dietary dry matter in a 22-d experiment. Rumen fluid samples were collected on 3 d before and on various days during the experiment. The concentration of protozoa in rumen fluid was not affected by the tea seed supplements (P > 0.05), but the numerical concentration of the Entodinium genera declined by 12% (P < 0.05) and that of cellulolytic protozoa increased by 90% (P < 0.05) due to the 6% tea seed supplement. The associated percentage in the rumen ciliate protozoa population of the cellulolytic protozoa increased (P < 0.05) and that of the Entodinium genera decreased (P < 0.05) due to the 6% supplement. There were no effects (P > 0.05) of the 3% tea seed supplement on the protozoa population parameters. Since ammonia and volatile fatty acid concentrations were not affected (P > 0.05) it was apparent that the tea seed supplements did not influence rumen fermentation. The positive effect of the 6% tea seed supplement on the ciliate protozoa population obtained in the present study was relatively modest. Because the seeds contain astringent properties, higher than 6% dietary supplements of tea seeds can be harmful to animals. It was therefore concluded that tea seeds are of no apparent value as an antiprotozoal dietary component in ruminant production. Key words: Tea seeds, ciliate protozoa, rumen fluid, 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".