MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117785523 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.4419

Effects of <i>Euphorbia esula</i> L. (leafy spurge) on cattle and sheep <i>in vitro</i> fermentation and gas production

2011· article· en· W2117785523 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard C. Waterman, Kimberly D Richardson, S. L. Lodge-Ivey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Toxicity and Pharmacological Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgricultural Research Service
KeywordsHayRumenLeafyGrazingFermentationBiologyDry matterRuminantAgronomyRangelandAnimal scienceBotanyPastureFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Euphorbia esula L. (leafy spurge) is indigenous to Eurasia and has been known to cause grazing aversion in ruminant species. As a result, E. esula encroachment has negatively impacted rangelands in the Northern Great Plains and Intermountain West of the USA, as well as southern Canada. Our objectives were to evaluate the effect of increasing concentrations of E. esula on in vitro dry matter digestibility (DMD) and gas production. Two ruminally-cannulated cows and ewes were used as rumen inoculum donors. To accomplish objectives, two studies were conducted. In study 1, animals were fed exclusively a barley hay (12% crude protein (CP), 55.4% neutral detergent fiber (NDF), DM basis) diet; whereas in study 2, animals were fed a diet of 15% E. esula (21.9% CP, 48% NDF, DM basis) and 85% barley hay based on previous day intake. RESULTS: The 24 and 48 h in vitro and 96 h gas production indicate that, regardless of inoculum source or substrate fermented, DMD was not influenced. Differences, however, were consistently observed across studies for NDF disappearance. CONCLUSION: Regardless of inoculum source NDF disappearance was greater when substrate being fermented contained 0%, 80%, or 100% E. esula.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicPlant Toxicity and Pharmacological PropertiesFrench-language works237,207