The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fermentation characteristics and ruminal ciliate protozoal populations in cattle fed medium- or high-concentrate barley-based diets.
Abstract
Fermentation characteristics were measured and numbers and distribution by genera of ciliate protozoa were determined in ruminal fluid samples collected from 10 ruminally cannulated steers during the first 30 d of their being fed barley-based diets containing 62% (Medium Barley) or 95% (High Barley) barley grain (DM basis). Ruminal samples were collected at 5-d intervals over the 30-d periods beginning after adaptation (i.e., at the first full feeding of each diet). Ruminal pH and ammonia concentrations were lower (P < 0.001) with the High Barley than with the Medium Barley diet. Concentrations of total VFA and propionate and amylase activity of ruminal fluid were higher (P < 0.001) on High Barley than on Medium Barley. Total protozoal numbers in ruminal fluid were 42% lower (P < 0.05) on High Barley (470 x 10(3)/mL) than on Medium Barley (804 x 10(3)/mL). On Medium and High Barley diets, respectively, Entodinium spp. made up 89 and 91% of the ciliate protozoal populations. With the Medium Barley diet, relative proportions of Dasytricha, Ophryoscolex, Ostracodinium, Diplodinium, and Metadinium spp. in the total ciliate population were 4.5, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.3%, respectively. When the High Barley diet was fed, these genera were not detected. In a subsequent survey, ruminal samples were collected from 200 finishing cattle at slaughter. Average protozoal population was 328 x 10(3)/mL, and Entodinium spp. constituted 97% of the total. These data demonstrate that a large population of Entodinium spp. can persist in the rumen of cattle fed high barley grain-based finishing diets.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(91)78551-2 · Cited by 28,658
Cited by
Ruminal Acidosis in Beef Cattle: The Current Microbiological and Nutritional Outlook
Nagaraja, T. G., & Titgemeyer, E. C. (2007) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2006-478 · Cited by 873
Bevans, D. W., Beauchemin, K. A., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K. S., McKinnon, J. J., & McAllister, T. A. (2005) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/2005.8351116x · Cited by 280
Self-citationHernandez-Sanabria, E., Goonewardene, L. A., Wang, Z., Durunna, O. N., Moore, S. S., & Guan, L. L. (2012) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.05114-11 · Cited by 207
Hernandez-Sanabria, E., Guan, L. L., Goonewardene, L. A., Li, M., Mujibi, D. F., Stothard, P., Moore, S. S., & Leon-Quintero, M. C. (2010) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.01052-10 · Cited by 119
Adesogan, A. T., Salawu, M. B., Ross, A. B., Davies, D. R., & Brooks, A. E. (2003) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(03)73764-3 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Hristov, A. N., Ivan, M., Rode, L. M., & McAllister, T. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 515
- ISSN
- 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2416014585
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fermentation characteristics and ruminal ciliate protozoal populations in cattle fed medium- or high-concentrate barley-based diets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2527/2001.792515x
- The paper
- Hristov, A. N., Ivan, M., Rode, L. M., & McAllister, T. A. (2001). Fermentation characteristics and ruminal ciliate protozoal populations in cattle fed medium- or high-concentrate barley-based diets. Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.792515x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.