Comparison of rumen in vitro fermentation of temperate pastures using different batch culture systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vitro batch culture systems are popular because they are relatively inexpensive and allow the screening and testing of large amounts of samples in a short time. Most of the batch culture systems have been designed for the evaluation of gas produced during fermentation of substrates and different designs have been compared between laboratories, but very little work is published where methane production or volatile fatty acid production is compared. The aim of this study was to determine the degree of agreement between two different in vitro batch culture systems, from different laboratories when measuring in vitro fermentation kinetics and end products using pasture samples as substrates. The two systems were a manual and a fully automated pressure-based system. Duplicates of pasture samples were incubated in three consecutive runs. Concordance correlation coefficients between systems and estimates of variance components (pasture, incubation run and random error) for each system were determined for all measured variables. There were poor correlations between systems for most of the variables except for time to produce half of the asymptotic gas production and acetate molar proportion of volatile fatty acids. However, for both systems most of variance was due to pasture sample and then incubation run. The poor agreement between systems might be explained by the different laboratory protocols. Therefore, comparisons of absolute values from different batch culture systems or experiments must be done carefully. Alternatively, more standardisation in terms of sample preparation and incubation procedure may be needed to compare in vitro fermentation products among systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".