PSXII-24 Effects of a phytogenic mixture with or without direct-fed microbials on ruminal fermentation in an artificial rumen system (Rusitec).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Naturally occurring plant secondary compounds (NOPSC) and direct-fed microbials (DFM) are potential alternatives to in-feed antibiotics. However, information about the efficacy of combinations of NOPSC and DFM in modulating rumen fermentation is lacking. An experiment using an artificial rumen (Rusitec) was conducted to assess the effect of NOPSC with or without DFM on ruminal digestion, microbial protein synthesis and microbial populations. The artificial rumen was fed a dairy TMR alone (C) or supplemented with a mixture of NOPSC containing essential oils, tannins, and flavonoids (T1), a combination of T1 and a 4-species mixture of Bacillus spp. (T2), or with monensin (M). The experiment was conducted twice, over 19 d, with 4 replicate fermenters per treatment. Data were subjected to analysis of variance using the MIXED procedure of SAS with treatments as main effects and differences assessed using the LSMEANS procedure of SAS with the PDIFF option. Supplementation of T1 and T2 increased (P< 0.01) neutral detergent fibre (NDF) disappearance, decreased (P< 0.05) ruminal ammonia concentration but had no effects on DM disappearance or production of volatile fatty acids, total gas or total microbial protein. Compared to C, T2 increased (P< 0.05) rumen particle-associated microbial protein synthesis, but a similar response was not observed for T1. Neither T1 nor T2 affected the daily output of 16S rRNA gene copies of Fibrobacter succinogenes, Prevotella bryantii, Ruminobacter amylophilus, Ruminococcus albus, Ruminococcus flavefaciens, Selenomonas ruminantium, Streptococcus bovis or total methanogens from the Rusitec fermentation system. In contrast, M decreased (P< 0.01-0.001) most of fermentation parameters measured and daily outputs of F. succinogenes, P. bryantii, R. albus, R. flavefaciens and total methanogens but increased (P< 0.01) that of S. ruminantium and R. amylophilus. Combination of NOPSC and Bacillus species as defined in this study and applied in appropriate dosage has potential to improve rumen fermentation by increasing NDF digestion and feed particle related microbial protein synthesis.
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".