MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2013769644 · doi:10.1021/jf403254a

Optimized Utilization of the Co-products from Bioethanol Processing and Oat Grain: Effect of Blending on Biochemical, Biodegradation, and Nutritional Profiles

2013· article· en· W2013769644 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daalkhaijav Damiran, Xuewei Zhang, Peiqiang Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAvenaStarchFood scienceBiodegradationHydrolysisChemistryNutrientAgronomyBiofuelBiologyBiotechnologyBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to (1) optimize the utilization of wheat-based dried distillers grains with soluble (wDDGS) by blending with oat ( Avena sativa L.) grain as an alternative feed for beef cattle when the barley price is high and (2) investigate the effect of blending on biochemical, biodegradation, and nutritional profiles. Oat grains were blended with wDDGS produced in western Canada at different levels (4:0, 3:1, 2:2, and 1:3 on %DM basis in two batches, denoted O0, O25, O50, and O75, respectively). The study revealed that increasing the wDDGS resulted in increasing most nutrient contents linearly (P < 0.05) except for starch and cell wall materials, which were linearly decreased (from 43.6 to 12.0% and from 34.5 to 29.1% of DM for starch and NDF, respectively). When wDDGS was increased in the blend/mixture, intestinally absorbable protein and degradable balance of protein increased (P < 0.05). Overall, through blending or combining with the cereal grain, the co-products from bioethanol processing could be optimally utilized. The best combination of oat to wDDGS ratio was 75% to 25%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→