Correction: Effects of Flammulina velutipes mushroom residues on growth performance, apparent digestibility, serum biochemical indicators, rumen fermentation and microbial of Guizhou black goat

A correction refers to a change to their article that the author wishes to publish after publication. The publication of this article is subject to Frontiers' editorial approval.Instructions:• Please read through all the templates before choosing • Pick the most relevant text template(s) from the following page and delete all others.• Edit the text as necessary, ensuring that the original incorrect text is included for the record, please see the below. • Please do not use any extra formatting when editing the templates, and only modify the red text unless absolutely necessary • Submit to Frontiers following the instructions on this page.When the original text contained incorrect information, to preserve the scientific record, please include that text when editing the below templates. For example:There was a mistake in the Funding statement, an incorrect number was used.The correct number is "2015C03Bd051.". The publisher apologizes for this mistake.The original version of this article has been updated. Wrong content There was a mistake in figure [Figure 1] as published. [This was a figure citation error on our part. Our team was conducting several similar experiments at the time, and the images were very similar. We mistakenly used an image from another experiment showing PCoA and NMDS analyses in 11 replicates (n=11) for each treatment group in Figure 1 of this study. The correct replication number for the rumen microbiota analysis in this study should be: "Rumen microbiota were collected from 6 goats (n=6) randomly selected from 11 goats in each treatment group for further analysis."]. The corrected figure [Figure 1] appears below. The original version of this article has been updated.Adding text [This was due to our incorrect use of images from another experiment. However, the repetition count for rumen microbial analysis in this study should have been "rumen microbes were collected from 6 goats randomly selected from 11 goats in each treatment group (n=6) for further analysis," but we forgot to provide a specific description in "Materials and methods." Therefore, we should add this information in "2.5 Rumen fluid collection, rumen fermentation parameters, and rumen microbial testing" under "Materials and methods."]. A correction has been made to the section [2.5 Rumen fluid collection, rumen fermentation parameters, and rumen microbial testing]:On the morning of the last day of the experiment, 2 h after feeding, six goats were randomly selected from the 11 goats in each group to collect rumen fluid using a negative-pressure sampler, with the tube inserted orally via the esophagus into the mid-rumen. To prevent contamination, the rumen fluid collected initially was discarded. About 50 mL of rumen fluid was collected from each goat. The rumen fluid was filtered through 4 layers of gauze, and the pH (PHS-3E, Shanghai Leici Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) value of the rumen fluid was detected immediately. The concentration of NH3-N was measured by a microplate reader (ELX800, BioTek Instrument Co., Ltd., USA) following the method of Paengkoum andHan (2009). Paengkoum, P., andHan, Y. (2009). Supplementation of probiotics on feed intake, digestibility and conjugatedlinoleic acid contents in plasma and meat of growing goats. Agric. J. 4, 231-241.The original version of this article has been updated.for a reason not seen here, please contact the journal's editorial office.