In Vitro Fermentation Response of Laying Hen Cecal Bacteria to Combinations of Fructooligosaccharide Prebiotics with Alfalfa or a Layer Ration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of combining a prebiotic with alfalfa on fermentation by laying hen cecal bacteria. Cecal contents from laying hens were diluted to a 1:3,000 concentration with an anaerobic dilution solution and added to serum tubes filled with ground alfalfa or a layer ration with or without fructooligosaccharide (FOS) prebiotic. Samples were processed in an anaerobic hood, pressurized by using a pressure manifold, and incubated at 37 degrees C. Volatile fatty acid (VFA) and lactic acid concentrations were quantified at 6 and 24 h of substrate fermentation. In this study, fermentation of alfalfa resulted in greater production of acetate, VFA, and lactic acid compared with the layer ration. Although with a relative inconsistency in data between trials, the amendment of FOS to both alfalfa and the layer ration appeared to further increase fermentation as demonstrated by overall higher propionate, butyrate, VFA, and lactic acid concentrations. The effect was more pronounced after 24 h of fermentation, implying time constraints for the optimal production of fermentation products in the chicken gastrointestinal tract. These data indicate that in vitro cecal fermentation can be enhanced by the addition of FOS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".