Nutrient Composition and Protein Extractability of Oat Forage Harvested at Different Maturity Stages as Compared to Grain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two oat varieties (CDC Dancer and Lamont) were grown in fields. Plants were harvested at three key stages: seedling (Forage 1), mid-season (Forage 2), and full grain maturity. The mature plants were separated into stover (Forage 3) and Grain. There were differential changes among measured attributes during growth. From seeds to Forage 1, crude protein (CP) and ash contents increased several fold, beta-glucan decreased, starch disappeared, and oil content remained unchanged for both oat varieties examined. As plants grew, CP, ash, oil and beta-glucan decreased, but other carbohydrates increased significantly. The CP content in Forage 1 was 5–fold higher than Forage 3 and 2-fold higher than Grain. Most macro and micro-minerals in forage followed the same changing pattern as ash. Amino acid composition of forage differed significantly from that of Grain. When subjected to aqueous media with a wide range of pH, forage harvested at each stage as well as grain all had their unique protein extractability curves. For forage, the peak value (the maximum extraction) decreased with maturity. Yet, as observed for both varieties, Forage 1 had a peak value half of that from Grain. In conclusion, based on the results from this study, nutrient composition in oat forages harvested at an early stage can be comparable or even superior to oat grains but low protein extractability limits oat forage use as an alternative protein source for non-ruminants.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".