Fourier Transform Infrared Microspectroscopic Analysis of the Effects of Cereal Type and Variety within a Type of Grain on Structural Makeup in Relation to Rumen Degradation Kinetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to use Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopy (FTIRM) to determine structural makeup (features) of cereal grain endosperm tissue and to reveal and identify differences in protein and carbohydrate structural makeup between different cereal types (corn vs barley) and between different varieties within a grain (barley CDC Bold, CDC Dolly, Harrington, and Valier). Another objective was to investigate how these structural features relate to rumen degradation kinetics. The items assessed included (1) structural differences in protein amide I to nonstructural carbohydrate (NSC, starch) intensity and ratio within cellular dimensions; (2) molecular structural differences in the secondary structure profile of protein, alpha-helix, beta-sheet, and their ratio; (3) structural differences in NSC to amide I ratio profile. From the results, it was observed that (1) comparison between grain types [corn (cv. Pioneer 39P78) vs barley (cv. Harrington)] showed significant differences in structural makeup in terms of NSC, amide I to NSC ratio, and rumen degradation kinetics (degradation ratio, effective degradability of dry matter, protein and NSC) (P < 0.05); (2) comparison between varieties within a grain (barley varieties) also showed significant differences in structural makeup in terms of amide I, NSC, amide I to NSC ratio, alpha-helix and beta-sheet protein structures, and rumen degradation kinetics (effective degradability of dry matter, protein, and NSC) (P < 0.05); (3) correlation analysis showed that the amide I to NSC ratio was strongly correlated with rumen degradation kinetics in terms of the degradation rate (R = 0.91, P = 0.086) and effective degradability of dry matter (R = 0.93, P = 0.071). The results suggest that with the FTIRM technique, the structural makeup differences between cereal types and between different varieties within a type of grain could be revealed. These structural makeup differences were related to the rate and extent of rumen degradation.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".