403 Using ruminally protected and unprotected Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products as alternatives to antibiotics in finishing beef steers: growth performance and antimicrobial resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objectives of this study were to assess the effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products (SCFP; NaturSafe® and Original XPC™, Diamond V) on growth performance and antimicrobial resistance in beef steers. Ninety Angus steers (initial BW=533±9.8 kg) were assigned to a randomized complete design with 6 treatments: 1) control (10% barley silage and 90% barley concentrate, DM basis), 2–4) control diet with 12, 15 and 18 g/d NaturSafe, 5) control diet with 8 g/d encapsulated XPC (eXPC), and 6) control diet with antibiotics (ANT; 330 mg/d monensin and 110 mg/d tylosin). Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS with the fixed effect of treatment and random effect of steers. Though the final BW (715 kg) and DMI (12.0 kg/d) were not affected by treatments, average daily gain tended (P < 0.10) to be greater in steers supplemented with eXPC compared with control (1.80 vs. 1.62 kg/d) with a trend (P < 0.09) for a linear increase in gain: feed with increasing NaturSafe. The proportion of total abscessed liver did not differ among treatments (58.9%), but the proportion of severely abscessed liver tended (P < 0.10) to be lower in cattle supplemented with 15 and 18 g NaturSafe/d, eXPC and antibiotics (20.0, 20.0, 20.0 and 6.7 vs. 53.3%). The percentage of erythromycin resistant and erythromycin + tetracycline resistant Enterococci increased (P < 0.05) in steers receiving antibiotics compared with control and SCFP group (34.57 vs. 4.28 and 6.88%), while no difference was observed between control and SCFP groups. These results indicate that NaturSafe and eXPC were beneficial in improving the growth performance by increasing average daily gain and feed efficiency. Both NaturSafe and eXPC could potentially act as alternatives to growth promoting 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".