Assessment of nutritive value of cereal and legume straws based on chemical composition and <i>in vitro</i> digestibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The nutritive value of 17 straws was determined on the basis of their chemical composition, in vitro dry matter (DM) digestibility and rumen fermentation kinetics (from gas production curves measured in vitro ). Five roughages were from the cereal species Avena sativa (oat), Hordeum vulgare (barley), Secale cereale (rye), Triticum aestivum (wheat) and Zea mays (maize stover). The other 12 samples were legume straws, two samples from each of the species Cicer arietinum (chickpea), Lens culinaris (lentil) and Phaseolus vulgaris (bean) and one sample from each of the species Lathyrus sativus (chickling vetch), Lupinus albus (white lupin), Pisum sativum (field pea), Vicia articulata (one‐flowered vetch), Vicia ervilia (bitter vetch) and Vicia sativa (common vetch). All samples were collected after harvesting from different farms located in León (northwestern Spain). Based on their chemical composition, digestibility and gas production characteristics, species could be clustered into two groups with a significant linkage distance, one for cereal straws that merged at a level of similarity of 80% and the other for legume straws with a degree of similarity of 50%. Species varied widely and significant differences ( P < 0.05) were observed between the two groups of straws. Legume straws showed higher crude protein (74 ± 6.1 vs 29 ± 2.2 g kg −1 DM) and lower fibre (584 ± 18.1 vs 793 ± 27.5 g neutral detergent fibre kg −1 DM) contents than cereal straws and, consequently, DM digestibility coefficients (0.670 vs 0.609; standard error of difference 0.0054) and metabolisable energy values (7.4 ± 0.15 vs 5.7 ± 0.24 MJ kg −1 DM) were significantly greater in legume than in cereal straws. Although there were noticeable differences among species within each botanical family, legume straws showed better nutritional quality than cereal straws, indicating that they could be considered promising and interesting sources of roughage for incorporation into ruminant diets. 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".