Composition and Distribution of Pentosans in Millstreams of Different Hard Spring Wheats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Six commercially grown samples of hard spring wheat were milled using a tandem Buhler laboratory mill. Individual flour streams and branny by‐products, as well as whole‐grain wheat and straight‐grade flour, were characterized in terms of total (TP), water‐extractable (WEP), and water‐unextractable (WUP) pentosans. One representative cultivar sample was analyzed for its ratio of arabinose to xylose (A/X). TP and WEP of whole grain wheat of the six samples had ranges of 5.45–7.32% and 0.62–0.90% (dm), respectively. Neither TP nor WEP of whole grain was related to ash content variation. There was significant variation in the distribution and composition of pentosans in 16 millstreams of all the wheat samples, including bran and shorts fractions; TP and WEP contents had ranges of 1.69–32.4% and 0.42–1.76% (dm), respectively. When ash contents exceeded ≈0.6% (dm), strong positive correlations were obtained between ash and TP contents, and between ash and WUP contents for all the millstreams. Among bran and shorts fractions, TP and WUP content increased in the order of coarse bran > fine bran > shorts; while WEP, WEP/WUP and A/X showed the opposite pattern of variation of shorts > fine bran > coarse bran. Bran and shorts fractions had pentosan contents several times higher than would be predicted from the relationship between pentosan and ash contents of the flour streams. Pentosans therefore represented a much more sensitive marker of flour refinement compared with ash content. Pentosans of endosperm were substantially different in their extractability and composition from those of bran. On this basis, different functionalities of pentosans of bran and endosperm would be expected. Results demonstrated the importance of milling extraction and millstream blending in the functionality and quality of wheat flour for breadmaking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".