Effect of<i>Propionibacterium freudenreichii</i>on ruminal fermentation patterns, methane production and lipid biohydrogenation of beef finishing diets containing flaxseed oil in a rumen simulation technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meale, S. J., Ding, S., He, M. L., Dugan, M. E. R., Ribeiro Jr. G. O., Alazzeh, A. Y., Holo, H., Harstad, O. M., McAllister, T. A. and Chaves, A. V. 2014. Effect of Propionibacterium freudenreichii on ruminal fermentation patterns, methane production and lipid biohydrogenation of beef finishing diets containing flaxseed oil in a rumen simulation technique. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94: 685–695. The objectives of this study were to examine the effects of Propionibacterium freudenreichii (strain T54; PB) and flaxseed oil (FO) in a total mixed ration on ruminal fermentation, CH4production and fatty acid biohydrogenation in two artificial rumens (RUSITEC). The experiment consisted of 8 d of adaptation and 12 d of sample collection with four replicate fermenters per treatment. Treatments were: (1) CON; (2) PB; (3) FO (60 g kg−1DM with autoclaved PB); (4) FOPB (60 g kg−1DM with PB). Disappearance of DM (g kg−1DM) and gas production (mL g−1DM) were not affected by treatment (P>0.05). Inclusion of FOPB increased (P=0.01) total volatile fatty acid (VFA) production (mmol d−1), compared with CON and PB. The acetate:propionate ratio was reduced (P<0.001) in all treatments, compared with CON. Methane production (mL g−1DM or mL g−1DMD) was lowest (P<0.001) with PB (27.1%); however, FO (14.3%) and FOPB (19.3%) also reduced CH4compared with CON. Fatty acid profiles for PB were similar (P>0.05) to CON for most fatty acids. Concentrations of 18:3n-3 were greater (P<0.001) in FO and FOPB in both digesta and effluent, compared with CON. Propionibacterium freudenreichii had very little effect on ruminal biohydrogenation, but reduced CH4production under the current conditions as a result of increasing propionate production.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".