MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626348923 · doi:10.2527/asasann.2017.647

647 Comparison of ruminal protected versus non-protected live yeast on omasal flows, site and extent of digestion in the digestive tract of beef heifers fed high-grain diet

2017· article· en· W2626348923 on OpenAlexaff
Peixin Jiao, F. Liu, Shi Ding, Nicola Walker, Wenzhu Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOmasumLatin squareRumenAnimal scienceDigestion (alchemy)Beef cattleBiologyMonensinStarchChemistryFood scienceAbomasumFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of adding ruminal protected versus non-protected live yeast (LY) on DM intake, omasal flows, site and extent of feed digestion in the digestive tract of beef heifers. The LY was encapsulated using barley protein (mainly hordein and glutelin) extracted from barley grain. Five rumen cannulated beef heifers (BW = 650 ± 48.8 kg) were used in a 5 × 5 Latin square design. Heifers were fed ad libitum total mixed diet containing 10% barley silage and 90% barley-based concentrate (DM basis). Five treatments were: 1) control (no additives); 2) antibiotics (28 mg monensin + 11 mg tylosin/kg dietary DM); 3) 1.5 g LY/d; 4) 3.5 g encapsulated LY/d (ELY); and 5) combination of treatments #3 and 4 (MLY). The encapsulated LY consisted of 1.5 g LY and 2 g capsule. Number of yeast colonies was 1.71 × 1010 cfu/g. Digesta and rumen microbes were labeled with Yb and 15N, respectively. Data were analysed using the MIXED procedure of SAS with model including fixed effect of treatment and random effects of heifer and period. Intake of DM (averaged 11.8 kg/d) was not affected by treatment. No treatment effects on flows (kg/d) of OM (5.4) and starch (0.75) to the omasum were observed, whereas flows of NDF were greater (P < 0.02) with antibiotics (1.9) than ELY (1.7). Ruminal digestibility of OM tended (P < 0.09) to be less with ELY (62.4%) or MLY (62.9) than control (66.4%) or antibiotics (68.1%), but no differences in ruminal digestibility of NDF (averaged 44.1%) and starch (averaged 83.0%) were observed among treatments. In contrast, greater (P < 0.03) postruminal digestibility (% of intake) of OM (30.9 vs 22.9%) and NDF (17.9 vs 7.9%) was observed with ELY and MLY than control and antibiotic groups. As a result, digestibility of OM (81.1 vs 77.0%) and NDF (64.1 vs 49.9%) in the total digestive tract was greater (P < 0.01) with ELY or MLY than control. No treatment effect was observed on the flows of N to omasum (averaged 292 g/d) and microbial protein synthesis (averaged 147 g/d). Digestibility of N in the total digestive tract was greater (P < 0.02) with ELY or MLY than control (79.2 vs 75.4%). These results indicate the potential postruminal activity of LY, and benefits to feeding protected LY on improving intestinal digestibility of nutrients in beef heifers fed high-grain diet.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 ScienceSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207