MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104114696 · doi:10.4141/p99-050

A review of the effects of forage condensed tannins on ruminal fermentation and bloat in grazing cattle

2000· review· en· W2104114696 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
L. R. McMahon, Tim A. McAllister, B. P. Berg, W. Majak, S. N. Acharya, J. D. Popp, Bruce Coulman, Y. Wang, K.-J. Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForageDigestion (alchemy)BiologyTanninProanthocyanidinCondensed tanninGrazingPolyphenolPastureRuminantFermentationRumenFood scienceAgronomyAmino acidBiochemistryChemistryAntioxidant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Condensed tannins (CT) are polyphenolic secondary plant products that are widespread in the plant kingdom. By definition, CT bind to protein and are regarded as "antinutritional" compounds which reduce protein digestibility. Variations in CT chemistry alter protein binding capacities among polymers from different plant species and developmental stages. Condensed tannins interact with proteins in feed, saliva and microbial cells, with microbial exoenzymes, and with endogenous proteins or other feed components, which alters digestive processes as compared with diets free of CT. Tannin levels exceeding 40 to 50 g kg −1 DM in forages may reduce protein and DM digestibility of the forages by ruminants. At low to moderate levels, CT increase the quantity of dietary protein, especially essential amino acids, flowing to the small intestine. Unlike alfalfa, legumes that contain CT do not cause bloat. Dietary CT may provide a means to beneficially manipulate protein digestion and/or prevent pasture bloat in ruminants. Research efforts are also currently being directed to genetically modify alfalfa to de-repress its CT biosynthetic pathway, or to move genes encoding steps of this pathway into alfalfa from other legumes. The effects of CT in forage legumes on digestion in ruminants and the potential use of tannin-rich forages for preventing bloat in grazing systems are discussed. Key words: Tannins, bloat, by-pass protein, cattle, grazing, alfalfa

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations289
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207