Effect of essential oil blends and a nonionic surfactant on rumen fermentation, anti-oxidative status, and growth performance of lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed to evaluate the effect of essential oils (OEO; XEO) and an emulsifier on rumen fermentation, anti-oxidative status, and the growth performance of lambs. A finishing study was conducted using 35 females and 35 males Suffolk × Canadian Arcott crossbreed lambs, fed a 16:84 forage:concentrate pelleted barley-based with either Control; Bovatec (0.018% Bovatec); Emulsifier (0.25% of Emulsifier); OEO (0.11% of blend 1); XEO (0.0125% of blend 2); OEO + Emulsifier; or XEO + Emulsifier. The rumen fluid of all lambs was sampled via stomach tubing to measure ruminal pH, volatile fatty acid (VFA), and NH3 concentrations and enumerate protozoa. Ruminal pH, molar proportions of individual VFA (except for acetate), and ammonia concentration were similar among treatments. The acetate and total VFA concentrations were lower (P = 0.03) for lambs receiving OEO, while protozoa numbers were increased (P = 0.01). No changes were observed in blood glutathione peroxidize or total superoxide dismutase, but there was a tendency for a reduction in thiobarbituric acid reactive substances in lambs fed diets containing OEO or XEO. No differences among diets were observed in coccidia oocyst counts (OPG) in feces, however, the prevalence of coccidia in lambs was reduced (Cramer’s V = 0.081) with OEO. Lambs fed OEO had the highest (P < 0.01) dry matter intake (DMI) (1.48 kg/d), whereas those fed XEO had the lowest (1.30 kg/d). Average daily gain (ADG), feed conversion (DMI/ADG), and carcass measurements (hot carcass weight, carcass dressing percentages) were not affected by EO or EM. Results from this study suggest that EO may alter rumen fermentation and protozoa counts and increase DMI. However, these responses did not appear to be enhanced by Emulsifier as its inclusion with essential oils did not enhance fermentation or growth responses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".