MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2992217078 · doi:10.1093/jas/skz258.151

82 Effect of by-product feed supplementation of a hay-based diet on rumen fermentation, diet digestibility, methane production and protozoal population in an artificial rumen (RUSITEC)

2019· article· en· W2992217078 on OpenAlexaff
Sidonie P Robinson, A.M. Saleem, Kim Ominski, K. M. Wittenberg, Tim A. McAllister, E. J. McGeough

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRumenHayFermentationAnimal scienceSunflowerPopulationBiologyTotal mixed rationFeed conversion ratioFood scienceAgronomyMedicineBody weightEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigated the effects of adding sunflower screenings, flax screenings and quinoa to a hay-based diet on ruminal fermentation, DM digestibility (DMD) and enteric methane (CH4) production in an artificial rumen system (RUSITEC). The experiment was a RCBD with 4 treatments assigned to 16 fermentation vessels (n = 4/treatment) in 2 RUSITEC apparatuses. The control diet was 100% hay, with treatments consisting of sunflower screenings, flax screenings and quinoa dockage at inclusion rates of 1.10, 1.38, and 1.59 g DM, respectively. The study period was 15 d, with an 8-d adaptation and 7-d sample collection period. Data were analyzed using the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS with fixed effects of treatment, day of sampling and their interaction as fixed effects. Compared to control, the addition of sunflower screenings decreased (P = 0.020) CH4produced per g of DM digested (10.43 vs. 7.88 mg/g DMD). Inclusion of sunflower screenings reduced (P < 0.01) DMD (67.6 vs. 57.8 %) and the number of protozoa (2.2x104vs. 1x103ml) compared to the control. The addition of flax screenings versus the control diet increased (P = 0.001) CH4produced per g of DMD (10.43 vs. 15.05 mg/g). However, inclusion of flax screenings resulted in a decrease (P < 0.05) in DMD and number of protozoa compared to the control (1.07x103vs. 2.2x104ml, 64.33 vs. 67.64 %, respectively). The addition of flax screenings decreased DMD (P = 0.04). Quinoa inclusion had no effect on DMD or protozoa count, while CH4production increased (P = 0.0003) compared to the control (15.15 vs 10.43 mg/g DMD). Disappearance of NDF did not differ between treatments (P = 0.72). Inclusion of sunflower screenings and quinoa did not affect molar proportions of propionate or and butyrate, while decreased (P < 0.05) by adding flax screenings. In conclusion, the addition of sunflower screenings provided the greatest potential to reduce CH4 emissions associated with supplemented hay-based diets.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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