MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2625474765 · doi:10.2527/asasann.2017.657

657 Effects of adding live yeast or yeast derivative on dry matter disappearance of high-forage diet in batch culture

2017· article· en· W2625474765 on OpenAlexaff
Peixin Jiao, F. Liu, Zhimin He, Shi Ding, Nicola Walker, Wenzhu Yang

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
KeywordsMonensinYeastForageFermentationBottleDry matterSubstrate (aquarium)Animal scienceFood scienceRumenChemistryYeast extractFactorial experimentSilageBiologyBiochemistryBotanyMathematicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to screen for the effects of live yeast (LY) or yeast derivative (YD) on DM disappearance (DMD), fermentation characteristics and microbial profiles in batch culture. The study was a 2 × 7 factorial arrangement including low (5.8) and high media pH (6.5); treatments were: control (no additives), three LY (LY1, LY2, LY3, 8 × 106 cfu/bottle for each LY), two YD (YD4, YD5, 30 mg/bottle for each YD), and monensin (positive control; 0.17 mg monensin/bottle). Substrate was a high-forage diet containing 60% barley silage and 40% concentrate (DM basis). Inoculum was obtained from two ruminally fistulated beef heifers fed the same diets to the substrate. Substrate (0.75 g) ground through a 1-mm sieve was weighed into a filter bag and incubated for 24 h in a gas-tight culture bottle in three replications by each combination of treatments. The culture was repeated at different day. Data were analyzed using mixed procedure of SAS with a model that includes fixed effects of yeast, pH level and their interactions, and the random effect of day. There was no interaction of yeast products with media pH on DMD. Increased media pH from 5.8 to 6.5 improved (P < 0.01) DMD (averaged 47 vs 54%). Supplementation of LY1 (48.2%) or YD5 (47.8%) had greater (P < 0.05) DMD than control (45.6%) or monensin (46.1%) at pH 5.8; and at pH 6.5, the DMD was greater (P < 0.05) with all 5 yeasts (averaged 54.8%) than control (52.8%) or monensin (52.7%). An interaction between pH and treatment was noticed (P < 0.02) for total VFA concentration (mM) which was greater (P < 0.05) with LY1, LY3, YD4 and YD5 (averaged 62.5) than control (57.0) and monensin (57.8) at pH 5.8. Ratio of acetate to propionate was less with monensin at either pH 5.8 (1.89) or pH 6.5 (2.22), whereas no differences were found between yeast and control. Overall, microbial profiles that were measured based on copy number of 16s rRNA gene (log10) were not affected by yeast supplementation except that the copy number of Fibrobacter succinogenes was less (P < 0.01) with monensin (7.16) than yeasts (7.95). These results suggest that in vitro DMD of high-forage diet varied with source of yeast and media pH. The improved DMD at pH 5.8 with LY1 and YD5 and at pH 6.5 with all five yeast products would be beneficial to high-forage fed cattle.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→