Studies on Rye (<i>Secale cereale</i> L.) Lines Exhibiting a Range of Extract Viscosities. 2. Rheological and Baking Characteristics of Rye and Rye/Wheat Blends and Feeding Value for Chicks of Wholemeals and Breads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five rye lines exhibiting a wide range of extract viscosities were evaluated for the rheological and baking properties of their flours, individually and in blends with hard red spring wheat flour. Commercial cultivars of rye and triticale were included in the study as controls. Extract viscosities of rye flours were higher than those of corresponding wholemeals, indicating shifting of water-extractable arabinoxylan into flour during roller milling. Falling numbers of the rye flours correlated positively with their extract viscosities in the presence (r = 0.73, p < 0.05) or absence (r = 0.65, p < 0.05) of an enzyme inhibitor. Farinograms revealed the weakness of rye and triticale flours compared to wheat flour. Extract viscosities of rye flours were negatively correlated (r = -0.65, p < 0.05) with mixing tolerance index and positively correlated (r = 0.64, p < 0.05) with dough stability, suggesting a positive impact of extract viscosity on dough strength. Extract viscosity was negatively correlated (r = -0.74, p < 0.05) with loaf volume and specific volume (r = -0.73, p < 0.05) and positively correlated (r = 0.73, p < 0.05) with loaf weight of rye/wheat bread. Overall, the results indicated that 30% of flour from high or low extract viscosity rye could be incorporated into rye/wheat breads without seriously compromising bread quality. Inclusion of rye, particularly high extract viscosity rye, in chick diets seriously impeded growth performance and feed efficiency. Part of the arabinoxylan survived bread-making and exerted an effect on chicks, although substantially lower digesta viscosities were observed in chicks fed rye bread diets than in those fed rye wholemeals.
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) | 0.001 | 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".