0481 Potential to improve fiber digestion in the rumen of cattle through inoculation with bison rumen contents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We hypothesized that inoculating the rumen of cattle with bison rumen contents would improve the ruminal degradability of forage by enhancing the cellulolytic capacity of the rumen microbiome. Sixteen ruminally cannulated beef heifers were fed a diet of 70% barley straw (78.0 ± 3.89 neutral detergent fiber [NDF]) and 30% supplement (36.6 ± 0.76 CP, 37.6 ± 1.41 NDF) on a dry matter (DM) basis. Cattle were inoculated with bison rumen contents twice, 2 wk apart. Intact bison rumens were obtained from an abattoir and transported in insulated containers in a heated truck. Rumens were opened and contents mixed in a heated tub under CO2. Rumen contents were removed from the cattle, weighed and approximately 72% of the contents (DM basis) were replaced by mixed bison rumen contents in each transfer. The in situ technique was used to measure ruminal degradation of canola straw, barley straw, timothy hay, and alfalfa hay before inoculation and 11 d after the second inoculation. Duplicate bags (10 × 20 cm; 6 g DM/bag) were incubated in the rumen of each heifer for 0, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, 96, 120 h. The percentage NDF disappearance (NDFD) from the bags was analyzed as: NDFD = A + B(1-e-kd(time-lag)), where A = soluble fraction, b = slowly digestible fraction, Kd = rate of digestion of fraction b, and lag = time before digestion began; and effective ruminal degradability (ERD) = A+B(kd/(kd+kp)) where kp = rate of passage (measured for each animal). Transfer of rumen contents decreased (P < 0.05) the potentially digestible fraction (A+B) in barley straw, but increased it in alfalfa hay (P < 0.05) (Table 1). No effect of inoculation on ERD were observed, suggesting fiber utilization by cattle was not substantially improved by introducing microbes from bison rumen contents.
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 | 0.001 | 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".