MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622837683 · doi:10.2527/asasann.2017.614

614 Effects of synbiotics on rumen fermentation

2017· article· en· W2622837683 on OpenAlexaff
Uchenna Y. Anele, Chanda Engel, Kendall C Swanson, Danica Baines

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynbioticsRumenLatin squareFermentationFood scienceAnimal scienceChemistryCompletely randomized designBiologyProbioticBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A metabolism study was conducted to evaluate the effects of synbiotics on ruminal fermentation in steers fed high grain diets. Three synbiotics (hydrolyzed yeast/live yeast (LYHY)), Celmanax (prebiotics)/live yeast (CLY), and Synerall (a commercial pre- and probiotics product, SYN) were selected for a rumen fermentation study. Prior to this, seven different synbiotics were evaluated using the batch culture technique to measure in vitro gas production, DM disappearance, and VFA concentrations. There was no difference in asymptotic gas volume and VFA concentrations, but LYHY, SYN, and CLY had numerically higher DM disappearance values compared with the other treatments. For the ruminal fermentation study, treatments consisted of these three synbiotics and a control. Four rumen cannulated steers were randomly assigned to the following 4 dietary treatments: 1) Control – high grain finishing diet, 2) Control + CLY, 3) Control + LYHY, 4) Control + SYN. Cannulated steers had ad libitum access to the dietary treatments. Steers were housed individually and fed once daily in a 4 × 4 Latin square design with 4 periods of 21 days. In each period, the steers were adapted to the diet for 14 days, and ruminal fluid samples were collected from day 15 to 21 to determine pH, lactic acid, and volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentrations. Addition of synbiotics had no effect (P > 0.05) on ruminal pH, although values for the synbiotics treatments were numerically higher compared with the control treatment. For beef cattle in the feedlot, higher pH is desirable to minimize incidences of acidosis. Typically, ruminal pH of 5.6 is regarded as the reference point for chronic acidosis. Ruminal pH value for the control treatment was below this reference point (5.56) compared with higher pH values (5.62) for the synbiotics treatments. With the exception of valeric and isovaleric acid concentrations, no differences were noted in total and individual VFA concentrations. Inclusion of synbiotics resulted in a greater (P = 0.019) acetate-to-propionate ratio compared with the control (1.41 vs. 1.23). The LYHY treatment had the lowest numerical acid load (total VFA + lactic acid) compared with the other treatments. Considering that LYHY had the highest numerical in vitro DM digestibility, a lower acid load could be interpreted as LYHY partitioning more energy into microbial mass, which will benefit the animals. The LYHY treatment was selected based on lower acid load compared with the other treatments and is currently being used in a feedlot finishing study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207