The digestibility and content of amino acids in toasted and non-toasted canola meals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was conducted to determine the level and digestibilities of amino acids and the level of glucosinolates in toasted and non-toasted canola meal samples produced in commercial crushing plants in western Canada. A total of 26 non-toasted and 31 toasted canola meals samples were analyzed for apparent ileal amino acid digestibilities using broiler chickens between 21 and 28 d of age. Commercially toasted canola meal contained 5.6 g 16 g -1 N (range 5.3–5.9) of Lys with a digestibility ranging from 65.5 to 85.7% (mean = 78.0%). Non-toasted canola meal contained 6.0 g 16 g -1 N (range 5.7–6.3) Lys with digestibility values ranging from 87 to 92% (mean = 89.7%). Toasted canola meal had an average total digestible amino acid content (not including Tyr and Trp) of 69.6 g 16 g -1 N (range 56.6–75.6) while non-toasted canola meal had 77.6 g 16 g -1 N (range 73.1–82.0). The levels of aliphatic glucosinolates in the toasted (6.16 μmol g -1 meal, range 1.2–12.5) and non-toasted meals (10.5 μmol g -1 meal, range 7.8–15.1) were low and likely of nonutritional consequence. In conclusion, non-toasted canola meal contains higher levels of digestible amino acids than conventional toasted canola meal and therefore consideration should be given to modifying commercial systems to produce a non-toasted meal. Key words: Canola meal, toasting, amino acid, digestibility, glucosinolates
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".