MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168340379 · doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8212

Active dry Saccharomyces cerevisiae can alleviate the effect of subacute ruminal acidosis in lactating dairy cows

2014· article· en· W2168340379 on OpenAlexaff
Ousama AlZahal, L. Dionissopoulos, A.H. Laarman, Nicola Walker, B.W. McBride

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRumenDry matterAnimal scienceForageAcidosisDairy cattleBiologyChemistryTotal mixed rationFood scienceLactationAgronomyEndocrinologyFermentationIce calvingPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the study was to determine the effect of active dry Saccharomyces cerevisiae (ADSC) supplementation on dry matter intake, milk yield, milk components, ruminal pH, and microbial community during a dietary regimen that leads to subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA). Sixteen multiparous, rumen-cannulated lactating Holstein cows were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 dietary treatments that included ADSC (Biomate; AB Vista, Marlborough, UK; 8 × 10(10) cfu/head per day) or control. During wk 1 to 6, all cows received a high-forage (HF) diet (77:23, forage:concentrate). Cows were then abruptly switched during wk 7 to a high-grain (HG) diet (49:51, forage:concentrate) and remained on the HG until the end of wk 10. Feed intake and milk yields were recorded daily. Ruminal pH was recorded continuously using an indwelling system for 1 to 2 d per week during the pre-experimental phase, and wk 6, 7, and 10. Ruminal digesta samples were collected at the end of the experiment and analyzed for relative change in microbial communities using real-time quantitative PCR. Cows were considered to have SARA if the duration below pH 5.6 was ≥300 min/d. Ruminal pH during wk 6 (HF plateau) was not different across treatments (15 ± 46 min/d at pH <5.6). The dietary regimen successfully induced SARA during wk 7 (transition from HF to HG diet), and ruminal pH (551 ± 46 min/d at pH <5.6) was not different across treatments. However, cows receiving ADSC had an improved ruminal pH (122 ± 57 vs. 321 ± 53 min/d at pH <5.6) during wk 10 (HG plateau) compared with control. Additionally, cows receiving ADSC had a better dry matter intake (23.3 ± 0.66 vs. 21.6 ± 0.61 kg/d) and 4% fat-corrected milk yield (29.6 ± 1.2 vs. 26.5 ± 1.2 kg/d) than control cows during the HG phase (wk 8 to 10). During HG feeding, cows receiving ADSC had greater total volatile fatty acid and propionate concentrations (175 ± 7.5 vs. 154 ± 7.5 and 117 ± 6.1 vs. 94 ± 5.7 mM for ADSC and control, respectively) and lower acetate:propionate ratio (0.26 ± 0.5 vs. 0.36 ± 0.05 for ADSC and control, respectively). Microbial analyses conducted on samples collected during wk 10 showed that cows supplemented with S. cerevisiae had a 9-fold, 2-fold, 6-fold, 1.3-fold, and 8-fold increase in S. cerevisiae, Fibrobacter succinogenes, Anaerovibrio lipolytica, Ruminococcus albus, and anaerobic fungi, respectively, which suggested an increase in cellulolytic microbes within the rumen. Cows supplemented with ADSC had 2.2-fold reduction in Prevotella albensis, which is a gram-negative bacterium predominant during SARA. Prevotella spp. are suggested to be an important source of lipopolysaccharide responsible for inflammation within the rumen. Cows supplemented with ADSC had a 2.3-fold increase in Streptococcus bovis and a 12-fold reduction in Megasphaera elsdenii. The reduction in M. elsdenii may reflect lower concentration of lactic acid within the rumen for ADSC cows. In conclusion, ADSC supplementation to dairy cows was demonstrated to alleviate the condition of SARA caused by abrupt dietary changes from HF to HG, and can potentially improve rumen function, as indicated by greater numbers of cellulolytic microorganisms within the rumen.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations88
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207