Effect of sprouting on the quality and composition of canola seed and oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sprouting has been considered as a damage factor in grading canola. This project deals with the evaluation of the effect of sprouting on the quality and composition of canola seed and oil. Sprouted seeds had lower oil content than nonsprouted seeds as determined by exhaustive petroleum ether extraction. The difference, although statistically significant, was small, less than 0.1% oil at the maximum level of sprouting allowed in topgrade canola. There were no differences in chlorophyll contents or moisture contents between sound and sprouted seeds. Sprouted seeds had significantly higher levels of FFA and crude protein than sound seeds. Oxidation parameters (diene and aldehyde) were higher in oils from sound seeds than oils from sprouted seeds, but there was no statistically significant difference in PV. Sprouted seeds had higher levels of tocopherols and sucrose, but lower levels of raffinose, stachyose, and total sugars than sound seeds. There was no difference in overall FA composition of the oil between sound and sprouted seeds. The second extraction of the Federation of Oils Seeds and Fat Associations (FOSFA) extraction method, which allowed the extraction of more polar lipids, contained significantly more saturated FA. However, this was not significant in the overall FA composition of the oils because this fraction counted for about 2% of the total lipid content. The presence of sprouted seed had an effect on results for oil and crude protein determined by NIR as compared with results by FOSFA extraction, or pulsed NMR for oil and Dumas combustion for crude protein. Addition of sprouted seed samples to the NIR, calibration set overcame this problem. These results suggested that sprouting did not have a highly damaging effect on the quality and composition of canola seed and oil when less than 10% of the seeds in a sample were sprouting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".