Comparison of two live <i><scp>B</scp>acillus</i> species as feed additives for improving <i>in vitro</i> fermentation of cereal straws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was performed in a 2 × 4 factorial arrangement to explore and compare the effects of inclusion of two live Bacillus additives (B. licheniformis and B. subtilis) at four doses (0, 0.25 × 10(7), 0.50 × 10(7) and 0.75 × 10(7) colony-forming units (cfu)) on in vitro gas production kinetics, fiber degradation, methane production and ruminal fermentation characteristics of maize stover and rice straw by mixed rumen microorganisms in dairy cows. The pH, concentrations of ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) and isovalerate were increased (P < 0.05), while the methane (CH4) production, ratio of acetate to propionate, and total volatile fatty acids (TVFA) concentration were decreased (P < 0.05) by the supplementation of B. licheniformis compared with that of B. subtilis. Adding B. licheniformis and B. subtilis raised (P < 0.05) or numerically raised the maximum gas production, while decreasing (P < 0.05) or numerically lowering pH and concentrations of most volatile fatty acids. The addition of B. licheniformis increased (P < 0.05) the NH3-N concentration but reduced CH4 production and ratio of acetate to propionate (P < 0.05), while the NH3 -N concentration was decreased (P < 0.05), and the CH4 production and ratio of acetate to propionate were increased by that of B. subtilis compared to the control. Results obtained in this research suggest that B. licheniformis would be preferred as a live Bacillus additive in comparison with B. subtilis, and its optimal dose should be 0.25 × 10(7) cfu/500 mg substrates.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".