Use of tannic acid to protect barley meal against ruminal degradation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The inefficiency of starch utilisation by ruminants fed readily fermentable cereal grains, such as barley, decreases the metabolic potential of such feeds and can cause serious dysfunctions related to acidosis or pre‐acidosis status in animals with higher energy requirements. The rate and extent of ruminal disappearance of grain dry matter (DM) are determined largely by the morphological features of the seed endosperm, but the presence of polyphenols may also constitute a limiting factor in ruminal hydrolysis. To assess the impact of tannins on the rate and extent of ruminal fermentation of barley grain, commercial grade tannic acid (TA) was included at 0, 1.0, 2.5 or 5.0% (wt/wt, DM basis) with ground barley grain in incubation in situ, and disappearance of DM and crude protein were monitored over 48 h. A dose‐dependent effect of TA on in situ degradation of barley meal was observed; significance was attained (p < 0.05) at the 5% treatment level. Scanning electron microscopy revealed limited microbial hydrolysis of endosperm cell walls in TA‐treated samples, although TA did not prevent microbial attachment to or hydrolysis of starch granules. Tannins may be effective for slowing ruminal disappearance of barley to improve starch utilisation by ruminants. Copyright © 2005 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) | 0.000 | 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".