Microbial development in distillers wet grains produced during fuel ethanol production from corn (<i>Zea mays</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distillers grains are coproduced with ethanol and carbon dioxide during the production of fuel ethanol from the dry milling and fermentation of corn grain, yet there is little basic microbiological information on these materials. We undertook a replicated field study of the microbiology of distillers wet grains (DWG) over a 9 day period following their production at an industrial fuel ethanol plant. Freshly produced DWG had a pH of about 4.4, a moisture content of about 53.5% (wet mass basis), and 4 x 10(5) total yeast cells/g dry mass, of which about 0.1% were viable. Total bacterial cells were initially below detection limits (ca. 10(6) cells/g dry mass) and then were estimated to be approximately 5 x 10(7) cells/g dry mass during the first 4 days following production. Culturable aerobic heterotrophic organisms (fungi plus bacteria) ranged between 10(4) and 10(5) CFU/g dry mass during the initial 4 day period, and lactic acid bacteria increased from 36 to 10(3) CFU/g dry mass over this same period. At 9 days, total viable bacteria and yeasts and (or) molds topped 10(8) CFU/g dry mass and lactic acid bacteria approached 10(6) CFU/g dry mass. Community phospholipid fatty acid analysis indicated a stable microbial community over the first 4 days of storage. Thirteen morphologically distinct isolates were recovered, of which 10 were yeasts and molds from 6 different genera, 2 were strains of the lactic-acid-producing Pediococcus pentosaceus and only one was an aerobic heterotrophic bacteria, Micrococcus luteus. The microbiology of DWG is fundamental to the assessment of spoilage, deleterious effects (e.g., toxins), or beneficial effects (e.g., probiotics) in its use as feed or in alternative applications.
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 | 0.001 | 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".