Duodenal flow and digestibility in fauna-free sheep and in sheep monofaunated with <i>Entodinium caudatum</i> or <i>Polyplastron multivesiculatum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three groups of five rumen and duodenum cannulated fauna-free sheep were used in a 28 d experiment. One group remained fauna-free, whereas the second (EN) and third (PP) groups, respectively, were inoculated intraruminally with the protozoan species Entodinium caudatum and Polyplastron multivesiculatum. Rumen fluid, duodenal digesta and faecal samples were collected during the last 12 d. The flow of digesta to the duodenum was determined using Yb and Co as dual-phase markers. (15)Nitrogen and phosphatidylcholine were used as markers to calculate the duodenal flow of bacterial and protozoal N, respectively. Results showed an increase (P < 0.1) in the rumen concentration of NH3-N and total volatile fatty acids, and a decrease (P < 0.05) in the duodenal flow of non-NH3-N and bacterial N in sheep with EN and PP monofaunas, compared with fauna-free sheep. There were no differences (P > 0.05) in these variables between the two monofauna groups. Protozoal N accounted for 8 % of the duodenal non-NH3-N flow in the EN-monofaunated sheep, whereas no such flow was detected in the PP-monofaunated sheep. Apparent rumen digestibility of organic matter, neutral detergent fibre and acid detergent fibre were similar (P > 0.05) in the monofaunated groups of sheep, but rumen acid detergent fibre digestibility was higher (P < 0.05) in the monofaunated than in the fauna-free groups. Experimental results suggested that, unlike EN, the PP monofauna might not contribute to the duodenal flow of microbial protein, whereas both monofaunas showed a virtually equal degree of predation on rumen bacteria.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".