Feed additives for methane mitigation: A guideline to uncover the mode of action of antimethanogenic feed additives for ruminants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This publication aims to provide guidelines of the knowledge required and the potential research to be conducted in order to understand the mode of action of antimethanogenic feed additives (AMFA). In the first part of the paper, we classify AMFA into 4 categories according to their mode of action: (1) lowering dihydrogen (H 2 ) production; (2) inhibiting methanogens; (3) promoting alternative H 2 -incorporating pathways; and (4) oxidizing methane (CH 4 ). The second part of the paper presents questions that guide the research to identify the mode of action of an AMFA on the rumen CH 4 production from 5 different perspectives: (1) microbiology; (2) cell and molecular biochemistry; (3) microbial ecology; (4) animal metabolism; and (5) cross-cutting aspects. Recommendations are provided to address various research questions within each perspective, along with examples of how aspects of the mode of action of AMFA have been elucidated before. In summary, this paper offers timely and comprehensive guidelines to better understand and reveal the mode of action of current and emerging AMFA.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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".