Chemical characteristics and in situ ruminal parameters of barley for cattle: Comparison of the malting cultivar AC Metcalfe and five feed cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the most widely grown barley cultivar in Canada, AC Metcalfe, a malting type barley, with five feed cultivars. Barley cultivars were grown at one location during 3 consecutive years and barley samples were milled to pass through a 1-mm screen and analysed to determine nutritive value. Additional samples were passed through a roller mill with a gap set at 1.12 mm and incubated ruminally for 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 h in 3 dry Holstein cows fitted with rumen cannulae. The rate and extent of rumen digestion were estimated. AC Metcalfe had a higher (P < 0.001) concentration of NDF, and lower (P < 0.05) concentrations of non structural carbohydrates, starch, ADF, total digestible nutrients, and fermentable cell wall carbohydrates compared with the mean of the feed cultivars. The malting cultivar had a higher (P < 0.001) soluble DM fraction, lower (P < 0.05) CP and starch degradation rates, and a lower (P < 0.001) ruminally degradable starch concentration compared with the mean of the five feed cultivars. The results demonstrate that there are only small differences in terms of chemical composition and in situ degradation kinetics between the malting cultivar AC Metcalfe and the five feed cultivars of barley reported here. Key words: Barley, energy, protein, ruminants
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".