Effect of dried distillers’ grains and solubles when replacing corn or soybean meal on rumen microbial growth in vitro as measured using DNA as a microbial marker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Castillo-Lopez, E., Klopfenstein, T. J., Fernando, S. C. and Kononoff, P. J. 2014. Effect of dried distillers’ grains and solubles when replacing corn or soybean meal on rumen microbial growth in vitro as measured using DNA as a microbial marker. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94: 349–356. The objectives were to evaluate the use of rDNA markers to measure the effects of dried distillers’ grains with solubles (DDGS) and the potential treatment×time interaction on microbial crude protein (MCP) synthesis in vitro and secondly to measure the contribution of yeast based protein originating from DDGS. Treatments were: (1) CONT, control with no DDGS, but with alfalfa hay, corn silage, ground corn (GC) and soybean meal (SBM) included at 25% (DM basis); (2) LOWCORN, 20% DDGS (DM basis) replacing GC; (3) LOWSBM, 20% DDGS (DM basis) replacing SBM; and (4) LOWCORNSBM, 20% DDGS (DM basis) replacing 10% GC and 10% SBM. Treatments (0.5 g) were incubated in 50 mL of inoculum in duplicate. At 0, 4, 16, 32, 48 and 96 h of fermentation total DNA was extracted from each treatment and MCP was measured using rDNA markers. The sum of bacterial crude protein (BCP) and protozoal crude protein (PCP) was considered as MCP. Data were analyzed as a completely randomized design. The treatment×time interaction was tested and the SLICE option was included to evaluate the effect of treatment at each fermentation time point. There was a tendency to a treatment×time interaction (P=0.07) for MCP. Specifically, at 16 h, LOWCORNSBM yielded greater (P<0.05) MCP compared to either CONT or LOWCORN with estimates of 68.5, 33.8 and 23.3±8.9 mg g–1DM, for LOWCORNSBM, CONT and LOWCORN, respectively. At 48 h, however, LOWCORN yielded greater MCP (P<0.05) compared with LOWSBM with estimates of 72.2 and 32.5±8.9 mg g–1DM, for LOWCORN and LOWSBM, respectively. Yeast crude protein (YCP) was not affected (P=0.21) and averaged 0.04±0.02 mg g–1of substrate (DM basis). Overall, rDNA markers were effective for quantifying MCP, but further research on the methodology is needed. With DDGS inclusion, MCP was maintained; however, yeast cells were extensively degraded during fermentation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".