↓ Skip to main content

The Type of Forage Substrate Preparation Included as Substrate in a RUSITEC System Affects the Ruminal Microbiota and Fermentation Characteristics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Type of Forage Substrate Preparation Included as Substrate in a RUSITEC System Affects the Ruminal Microbiota and Fermentation Characteristics
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00704
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea C. Duarte, Devin B. Holman, Trevor W. Alexander, Zoey Durmic, Philip E. Vercoe, Alexandre V. Chaves

Abstract

In vitro fermentation systems such as the rumen simulation technique (RUSITEC) are frequently used to assess dietary manipulations in livestock, thereby limiting the use of live animals. Despite being in use for nearly 40 years, improvements are continually sought in these systems to better reflect and mimic natural processes in ruminants. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of forage preparation, i.e., frozen minced (FM) and freeze-dried and ground (FDG), on the ruminal microbiota and on fermentation characteristics when included as a substrate in a RUSITEC system. A completely randomized design experiment was performed over a 15-day period, with 7 days of adaptation and an 8-day experimental period. Fermentation parameters (total gas, CH4, and volatile fatty acid production) were analyzed on a daily basis over the experimental period and the archaeal and bacterial microbiota (liquid-associated microbes [LAM] and solid-associated microbes [SAM] was assessed at 0, 5, 10, and 15 days using high-throughput sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. Results from this study suggested a tendency (P = 0.09) of FM treatment to increase daily CH4 (mg/d) production by 16.7% when compared with FDG treatment. Of the major volatile fatty acids (acetate, propionate, and butyrate), only butyrate production was greater (P = 0.01) with FM treatment compared with FDG substrate. The archaeal and bacterial diversity and richness did not differ between the forage preparations, although feed particle size of the forage had a significant effect on microbial community structure in the SAM and LAM samples. The Bacteroidetes phylum was more relatively abundant in the FM substrate treatment, while Proteobacteria was enriched in the FDG treatment. At the genus-level, Butyrivibrio, Prevotella, and Roseburia were enriched in the FM substrate treatment and Campylobacter and Lactobacillus in the FDG substrate treatment. Evidence from this study suggests that forage preparation affects CH4 production, butyrate production, and the structure of the rumen microbiota during in vitro fermentation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Professor 5 13%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 40%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 May 2017.
All research outputs
#4,073,199
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#3,873
of 25,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,431
of 311,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#140
of 510 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 510 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.