Effect of Herbal Formulation AV/DAC-16 Supplementation on Rumen Profiles in Buffalo Calves (Bubalus bubalis)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
12 healthy buffalo calves with BW range 100-150 kg were fistulated and divided into two groups of 6 animals each. Control group animals were fed on conventional diet comprising of wheat straw (2 kg), green fodder (8 kg), concentrate (1.0 kg) and mineral mixture (0.050kg). The animals of the treatment group were kept on diet similar to the control group along with feeding of herbally formulated drug AV/DAC-16@ 15 gm/day for 21 days. Each animal was sampled for three consecutive days at 0 hr i.e., immediately before feeding and subsequent samples were taken at 2, 4 and 6 h intervals after feeding. There was a significant fall in pH at 2 and 4 h post-prandial and in MBRT during the entire observation period. TVFA concentration increased significantly in the treatment group. Though oral administration of AV/DAC-16 did not have any prominent effect on the protozoal count, the bacterial count increased significantly in comparison to control group. Total nitrogen concentrations fell significantly while a significant increase was observed in the ammonia nitrogen content in the supplemented group at 6 hours after feeding. The animals of supplemented group showed a significant increase in body weights.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".