Chemical Profile, Rumen Degradation Kinetics, and Energy Value of Four Hull-less Barley Cultivars: Comparison of the Zero-Amylose Waxy, Waxy, High-Amylose, and Normal Starch Cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare three new Canadian hull-less barley cultivars with altered starch characteristics (zero-amylose waxy, CDC Fibar; waxy, CDC Rattan; and high-amylose, HB08302) with conventional normal starch hull-less barley (HB) cultivar (CDC McGwire) in terms of ruminant feed value. The study revealed that altered starch HB cultivars possessed several desirable feed characteristics, distinct from conventional normal starch HB, although they were similar in some respects: (1) basic chemical and carbohydrate subfraction profiles varied; (2) starch degradation kinetics showed altered starch HB containing higher soluble starch, rumen undegraded starch, lower degradable starch, and slower degradation rate; (3) all altered starch HB cultivars had similar soluble and degradable starch, different from that of conventional normal starch HB; (4) two waxy HB cultivars were lower, whereas the high-amylose cultivar was similar in effective degradability of the starch as compared to conventional normal starch HB; (5) zero-amylose waxy HB had the greater effective degradability of protein among HB cultivars; and (6) amylopectin in HB had a positive relationship with protein supply (increasing amylopectin was correlated with increased effective degradability of protein). Overall, these results demonstrate that the alteration of starch structure in granule affects not only starch fermentation and utilization but also protein value in hull-less barley. In summary, the HB cultivars with modified starch might be a better feed grain for ruminants than the normal starch HB.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".