A comparison of the nutrient digestibility of Desi and Kabuli chickpeas fed to swine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An experiment was conducted to compare the nutritional composition of 16 varieties of chickpeas (Kabuli and Desi) and to determine their nutrient digestibility for swine using the mobile nylon bag technique. The average crude protein content of the Kabuli chickpeas (226 g kg−1) was lower than that of the Desi chickpeas (235 g kg−1). Desi chickpeas were higher in acid detergent fibre (145 versus 50 g kg−1) and neutral detergent fibre (264 versus 181 g kg−1) than Kabuli chickpeas. Digestibility coefficients for dry matter (83.1 versus 72.5%), gross energy (83.5 versus 74.8%) and crude protein (83.7 versus 79.4%) were higher for Kabuli chickpeas than for Desi chickpeas. Based on chemical analysis and nutrient digestibility, Kabuli chickpeas would appear to have greater potential as a protein and energy source for use in swine rations than Desi chickpeas. © 2002 Society of Chemical Industry
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".