Ruminally protected and unprotected Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products as alternatives to antibiotics in finishing beef steers1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to assess the effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products (SCFP; NaturSafe, SCFPns; and Original XPC, XPC; Diamond V) on growth performance, carcass traits, immune response, and antimicrobial resistance in beef steers fed high-grain diets. Ninety Angus steers (initial body weight [BW], 533 ± 9.8 kg) were assigned to a randomized complete design with 6 treatments (n = 15/treatment): 1) control, 2) low (12 g SCFPns·steer-1·d-1), 3) medium (15 g SCFPns·steer-1·d-1), 4) high SCFP (18 g SCFPns·steer-1·d-1), 5) encapsulated XPC (eXPC; 7 g XPC·steer-1·d-1 encapsulated with 9 g capsule material), and 6) antibiotics (ANT; 330 mg monensin + 110 mg tylosin·steer-1·d-1). Steers were fed ad libitum a diet containing 10% barley silage and 90% barley grain concentrate mix (dry matter basis) for 105 d. Increasing SCFPns tended (P < 0.09) to linearly increase feed efficiency. Average daily gain (ADG) tended (P < 0.10) to be greater in steers supplemented with eXPC than control. The SCFPns also tended (P < 0.10) to linearly increase marbling score. Proportion of severely abscessed livers tended (P < 0.10) to be lower in steers supplemented with medium and high SCFPns, eXPC, or ANT. A treatment × days on feed interaction were noticed (P < 0.01) for blood glucose, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and acute phase proteins. The concentration of blood glucose responded quadratically (P < 0.05) on days 28 and 56, whereas BUN linearly (P < 0.01) increased on day 105 with increasing SCFPns dose. The SCFPns linearly increased haptoglobin (P < 0.03) and serum amyloid A (SAA;P < 0.05) concentrations on day 105, and lipopolysaccharide binding protein (LBP;P < 0.01) on days 56 and 105. The percentage of erythromycin-resistant and erythromycin + tetracycline-resistant enterococci was greater (P < 0.05) with ANT than control, SCFPns, and eXPC, whereas no difference was observed among control, SCFPns, and eXPC. No treatment effect was detected on the percentage of tetracycline-resistant enterococci. These results indicate that feeding SCFPns and eXPC was beneficial in improving ADG, feed efficiency and decreasing liver abscesses in a manner comparable to ANT. Unlike antibiotics, SCFPns or eXPC did not increase antimicrobial resistance. Both SCFPns and eXPC are potential alternatives to in-feed antibiotics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".