MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2078841607 · doi:10.1021/jf3009487

Use of a Dry Fractionation Process To Manipulate the Chemical Profile and Nutrient Supply of a Coproduct from Bioethanol Processing

2012· article· en· W2078841607 on OpenAlexaff
Xuewei Zhang, E. Beltranena, Colleen Christensen, Peiqiang Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoproductFractionationDistillers grainsChemistryNutrientBiofuelFood scienceChromatographyBiotechnologyBiologyOrganic chemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With an available processing technology (fractionation), coproducts from bioethanol processing (wheat dried distillers grains with solubles, DDGS) could be fractionated to a desired/optimal chemical and nutrient profile. There is no study, to the author's knowledge, on manipulating nutrient profiles through fractionation processing in bioethanol coproducts in ruminants. The objectives of this study were to investigate the effect of fractionation processing of a coproduct from bioethanol processing (wheat DDGS) on the metabolic characteristics of the proteins and to study the effects of fractionation processing on the magnitude of changes in chemical and nutrient supply to ruminants by comparing chemical and nutrient characterization, in situ rumen degradation kinetics, truly absorbed protein supply, and protein degraded balance among different fractions of coproduct of wheat DDGS. In this study, wheat DDGS was dry fractionationed into A, B, C, and D fractions according to particle size, gravity, and protein and fiber contents. The results showed that the fractionation processing changed wheat DDGS chemical and nutrient profiles. NDF and ADF increased from fraction A to D (NDF, from 330 to 424; ADF, from 135 to 175 g/kg DM). Subsequently, CP decreased (CP, from 499 to 363 g/kg DM), whereas soluble CP, NPN, and carbohydrate increased (SCP, from 247 to 304 g/kg CP; NPN, from 476 to 943 g/kg SCP; CHO, from 409 to 538 g/kg DM) from fraction A to D. The CNCPS protein and carbohydrate subfractions were also changed by the fractionation processing. Effective degradability of DM and CP and total digestible protein decreased from fraction A to D (EDDM, from 734 to 649; EDCP, from 321 to 241; TDP, from 442 to 312 g/kg DM). Total truly absorbed protein in the small intestine decreased from fraction A to D (DVE value, from 186 to 124 g/kg DM; MP in NRC-2001, from 193 to 136 g/kg DM). Degraded protein balance decreased from wheat DDGS fractions A-D (DPB in the DVE/OEB system, from 245 to 161 g/kg DM; DPB in NRC-2001, from 242 to 158 g/kg DM). The fractionation processing had a great impact on the chemical and nutrition profiles. Total truly digested and absorbed protein supply and degraded protein balance were decreased. The processing relatively optimized the protein degraded balance of the coproducts to dairy cattle. Compared with the original wheat DDGS (without fractionation), fractionation processing decreased truly absorbed protein supply of DVE and MP values. In conclusion, fractionation processing can be used to manipulate the nutrient supply and N-to-energy degradation synchronization ratio of coproducts from bioethanol processing. Among the fractions, fraction A was the best in terms of its highest truly absorbed protein DVE and MP values. Fractionation processing has great potential to fractionate a coproduct into a desired and optimal chemical and nutrient profile. To the author's knowledge, this is the first paper to show that with fractionation processing, the coproducts from bioethanol processing (wheat DDGS) could be manipulated to provide a desired/optimized nutrient supply to 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 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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.236
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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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