Bunker‐stored silage covered with biodegradable coating. Part I. Laboratory assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effect of a hydrophobic biodegradable coating on the conservation of silage was evaluated in comparison with unsealed silage and silage covered with a polyethylene (plastic). Silage samples were subjected to biochemical analysis (pH, dry matter, water‐soluble sugars, ammoniacal nitrogen, lactic acid) and microbiological analysis (total aerobes, lactic acid bacteria, moulds and yeasts) during 135 days of storage. Silage covered with the biodegradable coating had a constant pH value of 4.79 and was preserved against spoilage until day 120, whereas the pH of unsealed silage increased during the first 6 days to a value of 8.22. After 2 months of storage, silage covered with the biodegradable coating had a lower dry matter content, higher water‐soluble sugar content and higher lactic acid concentration than unsealed silage. During storage the population of total aerobes was lower in silage covered with the biodegradable coating than in silage covered with plastic. Furthermore, silage covered with the biodegradable coating had a stable content of aerobic micro‐organisms. The biodegradable‐coated silage showed a growth of lactic acid bacteria similar to that of silage covered with plastic. Only silage covered with the biodegradable coating had a low initial content of moulds and yeasts. Air infiltration was present throughout the storage period in the plastic and biodegradable coating treatments and was linked with the degradation of silage in both cases. However, the biodegradable coating significantly (P ≤ 0.05) increased the period of silage conservation compared with that of uncoated silage. Copyright © 2004 Society of Chemical Industry
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".