MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953969573 · doi:10.1093/jas/skz224

Effect of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes and ammonia fiber expansion on the fermentation of wheat straw in an artificial rumen system (RUSITEC)1

2019· article· en· W2953969573 on OpenAlexaff
A.M. Saleem, Gabriel O Ribeiro, Haley Sanderson, D. Alipour, Tassilo Brand, Martin Hünerberg, Wenzhu Yang, Laize Vieira Santos, Tim A. McAllister

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersElanco Animal Health
KeywordsRumenStrawFermentationAgronomyRice strawAmmoniaFiberBiologyChemistryAnimal scienceFood scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the effect of treatment of wheat straw using ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX) and exogenous fibrolytic enzymes (Viscozyme) on fiber digestibility, rumen fermentation, microbial protein synthesis, and microbial populations in an artificial rumen system [Rumen Simulation Technique (RUSITEC)]. Four treatments were assigned to 16 vessels (4 per treatment) in 2 RUSITEC apparatuses in a randomized block design. Treatments were arranged as a 2 × 2 factorial using untreated or AFEX-treated wheat straw with or without exogenous fibrolytic enzymes [0 or 500 μg of protein/g straw dry matter (DM)]. Fibrolytic enzymes were applied to straw, prior to sealing in nylon bags. The concentrate mixture was provided in a separate bag within each fermentation vessel. The RUSITECs were adapted for 8 d and disappearance of DM, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and crude protein (CP) was measured after 48 h of incubation. Ammonia fiber expansion increased (P < 0.01) the disappearance of wheat straw DM (69.6 vs. 38.3%), NDF (65.6 vs. 36.8%), ADF (61.4 vs. 36.0%), and CP (68.3 vs. 24.0%). Total dietary DM, organic matter (OM), and NDF disappearance was also increased (P ≤ 0.05) by enzymes. Total microbial protein production was greater (P < 0.01) for AFEX-treated (72.9 mg/d) than untreated straw (63.1 mg/d). Total gas and methane (CH4) production (P < 0.01) were also greater for AFEX-treated wheat straw than untreated straw, with a tendency for total gas to increase (P = 0.06) with enzymes. Ammonia fiber expansion increased (P < 0.01) total volatile fatty acid (VFA) production and the molar proportion of propionate, while it decreased (P < 0.01) acetate and the acetate-to-propionate ratio. The AFEX-treated straw had lower relative quantities of fungi, methanogens, and Fibrobacter succinogenes (P < 0.01) and fewer protozoa (P < 0.01) compared to untreated straw. The pH of fermenters fed AFEX-treated straw was lower (P < 0.01) than those fed untreated straw. Both AFEX (P < 0.01) and enzymes (P = 0.02) decreased xylanase activity. There was an enzyme × straw interaction (P = 0.02) for endoglucanase activity. Enzymes increased endoglucanase activity of AFEX-treated wheat straw, but had no effect on untreated straw. The addition of enzymes lowered the relative abundance of Ruminococcus flavefaciens, but increased F. succinogenes. These results indicate that AFEX increased the ruminal disappearance of wheat straw and improved fermentation and microbial protein synthesis in the RUSITEC.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207