MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095071991 · doi:10.4141/a99-118

In situ rumen degradation characteristics of sixty cultivars of barley grain

2000· article· en· W2095071991 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G.R. Khorasani, J. H. Helm, J.J. Kennelly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarRumenDigestion (alchemy)StarchAgronomyComposition (language)BiologyAnimal scienceChemistryFood scienceFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our objectives were to determine the extent of genetic variability in the rate and extent of ruminal digestion among 60 cultivars of barley, and to evaluate the correlations between ruminal digestion characteristics and chemical composition and test weight of barley cultivars. Barley samples were ground through a 2-mm screen, and bags containing 1 g of ground grains were incubated in the rumen of three late-lactation Holstein cows with rumen cannulae for 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 h. The rate and extent of ruminal digestion were estimated. The insoluble DM fraction ranged from 33.4 to 56.4%, the degradable DM fraction ranged from 34.1 to 60.2%, and the rate of degradation of DM ranged from 0.200 h −1 to 0.624 h −1 . Hulled barley cultivars had lower (P < 0.05) soluble and degradable fractions than hulless cultivars. The soluble fraction was positively correlated to starch content of barley cultivars (P = 0.01) and the degradable fraction was correlated to the test weight and CP content (P < 0.01). The observed variability in the ruminal digestion characteristics of barley cultivars indicates that genetic selection holds promise as a means of enhancing the nutritional quality of barley for ruminants. We also observed that 70% of the variation in digestibility could be explained by measures of bulk density, starch content, and kernel weight. Key words: Barley cultivars, in situ degradability

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations34
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207