Cited by 119Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production

The effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Aspergillus oryzae on fermentations in the rumen of faunated and defaunated sheep; protozoal and probiotic interactions.

Open access
Mathieu, F., Jouany, JP, Sénaud, J., Bohatier, J., Bertin, G., Mercier, M.·1996·Reproduction Nutrition Development

Abstract

We measured the effect of the direct addition to the rumen of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC 50 mg/day) and Aspergillus oryzae (AO 3 g/day) on the fermentation processes in fistulated sheep. The measurements were carried out on animals whose rumens were first defaunated and then refaunated. The animals received a ration composed of hay (600 g/day), barley (600 g/day) and soybean meal (150 g/day), fed twice daily in two equal meals. The number of fungi and total, viable or cellulolytic bacteria were lower after the inoculation of protozoa in defaunated rumens. The probiotics stimulated the development of total bacteria but reduced the population of cellulolytic bacteria. The addition of the probiotics and the presence of protozoa each incurred a decrease in the redox potential values. The association of both treatments had an additive effect on this parameter. The two probiotics and the protozoa stabilized the rumen pH after the meal, maintaining it above the value of 6 for a longer period of time. The positive effects on pH were accumulated in the refaunated animals receiving probiotics. The ammonia nitrogen concentration was considerably increased by the presence of the protozoa; the probiotics increased the ammonia concentration only in the refaunated sheep. The methane and hydrogen proportions in the fermentation gases were invariably higher in the refaunated animals. The probiotics had no clear effect either on the gas composition or the concentration and the composition of the mixture of volatile fatty acids; only the concentration of isovalerate was significantly increased by probiotics and only in refaunated animals. The protozoa did, however, considerably increase the concentrations of acetate, butyrate and isoacids and decreased the concentration of caproate.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1051/rnd:19960305

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The rumen Eh ranges from -268 to -318 mV.

    “Second, the Eh in the rabbit cecum ranges from -160 to -210 mV (Kimsé et al., 2010; Michelland et al., 2010), while the rumen Eh ranges from -268 to -318 mV (Mathieu et al., 1996).”

    From Comparative Analysis of the Microbiota Between Sheep Rumen and Rabbit Cecum Provides New Insight Into Their Differential Methane Production (2018) · cites this paper as Mathieu et al., 1996

    The Results section says rumen redox potential changed after feeding and with protozoa or probiotics, but the passages available from our copy do not give a range of −268 to −318 mV. Searches for those values and for Table IV’s redox-potential measurements did not locate the claimed endpoints. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 119

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Frumholtz PP (1991) Manipulation of the rumen fer- mentation and its effects on digestive physiology. PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen, 237 p
  2. Williams AG, Coleman GS (1992) The Rumen Proto- zoa. Springer Verlag, London, UK, 441 p

Authors
Mathieu, F., Jouany, J., Sénaud, J., Bohatier, J., Bertin, G., & Mercier, M.
Affiliations
  • Centre de Recherche en Nutrition Humaine d'Auvergne (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
Reproduction Nutrition Development
Publisher
EDP Sciences
Published
1996
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
271-287
ISSN
  • 0003-388X (ISSN-L)
  • 0926-5287
OpenAlex
W1982027180
Cited by
119
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
9.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • annales de biologie animale biochimie biophysique (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Keywords
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Aspergillus oryzae, rumen fermentation, rumen protozoa, rumen defaunation, probiotics, rumen fungi, cellulolytic bacteria, redox potential, rumen pH, ammonia nitrogen, methane, volatile fatty acids, isovalerate, sheep
MeSH terms
Ammonia, Animals, Aspergillus oryzae, Fatty Acids, Volatile, Fermentation, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Nitrogen, Oxidation-Reduction, Rumen, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Sheep, Eukaryota

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review