Chemical composition and ruminal degradability of grain pearl millet grown in southwestern Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to determine the chemical composition and ruminal nutrient degradabilities of grain of five hybrids of pearl millet grown in southwestern Quebec. Hybrids were selected because they were poor hosts of the widely prevalent root lesion nematode (Pratylenchus penetrans). Neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent lignin were similar for all hybrids. However, acid detergent fiber (ADF) was higher for CGPMH-1 than CGPMH-7 and CGPMH-38 and was higher for CGPMH-11 and CGPMH-20 than CGPMH-7. Starch content was higher for CGPMH-7 (668 g kg-1 DM) than the other hybrids (average 635 g kg-1 DM). Crude protein (CP) was lower for CGPMH-7 (141 g kg-1 DM) than the other hybrids (average 181 g kg-1 DM). Fatty acid content was higher for CGPMH -11 and CGPMH-20 than CGPMH-38. Linoleic acid was the most abundant fatty acid in all hybrids and was lower for CGPMH-38 than the other hybrids. Ruminal dry matter degradability was similar for all hybrids (average 69.5%). However, ruminal CP and starch degradabilities were higher for CGPMH-1 and CGPMH-20 than CGPMH-11 and CGPMH-38. It was concluded that grain concentrations of CP, ADF, and starch, and ruminal CP and starch degradabilities of pearl millet varied among hybrid. Key words: Chemical composition, Pearl millet, Ruminal degradability
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".