MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174042676 · doi:10.4141/cjas10047

Review: The use of direct fed microbials to mitigate pathogens and enhance production in cattle

2011· article· en· W2174042676 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tim A. McAllister, K. A. Beauchemin, Awfa Y. Alazzeh, J. Baah, R. M. Teather, Kim Stanford

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRumenRuminantLactobacillus rhamnosusBiologyFood scienceMicrobiologyDigestion (alchemy)BiotechnologyLactobacillusFermentationChemistryAgronomyPasture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

McAllister, T. A., Beauchemin, K. A., Alazzeh, A. Y., Baah, J., Teather, R. M. and Stanford, K. 2011. Review: The use of direct fed microbials to mitigate pathogens and enhance production in cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 193–211. Direct-fed microbials (DFM) have been employed in ruminant production for over 30 yr. Originally, DFM were used primarily in young ruminants to accelerate establishment of the intestinal microflora involved in feed digestion and to promote gut health. Further advancements led to more sophisticated mixtures of DFM that are targeted at improving fiber digestion and preventing ruminal acidosis in mature cattle. Through these outcomes on fiber digestion/rumen health, second-generation DFM have also resulted in improvements in milk yield, growth and feed efficiency of cattle, but results have been inconsistent. More recently, there has been an emphasis on the development of DFM that exhibit activity in cattle against potentially zoonotic pathogens such as Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella spp. and Staphylococcus aureus. Regulatory requirements have limited the microbial species within DFM products to organisms that are generally recognized as safe, such as lactic acid-producing bacteria (e.g., Lactobacillus and Enterococcus spp.), fungi (e.g., Aspergillus oryzae), or yeast (e.g., Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Direct-fed microbials of rumen origin, involving lactate-utilizing species (e.g., Megasphaera elsdenii, Selenomonas ruminantium, Propionibacterium spp.) and plant cell wall-degrading isolates of Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens have also been explored, but have not been commercially used. Development of DFM that are efficacious over a wide range of ruminant production systems remains challenging because[0] comprehensive knowledge of microbial ecology is lacking. Few studies have employed molecular techniques to study in detail the interaction of DFM with native microbial communities or the ruminant host. Advancements in the metagenomics of microbial communities and the genomics of microbial–host interactions may enable DFM to be formulated to improve production and promote health, responses that are presently often achieved through the use of antimicrobials in cattle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations247
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207