MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520512529 · doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11000

Chemical and ruminal in vitro evaluation of Canadian canola meals produced over 4 years

2016· article· en· W2520512529 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
G.A. Broderick, S. Colombini, Sara Costa, Mehmet Akif Karslı, A.P. Faciola

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanola Council of CanadaUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
KeywordsCanolaRumenCaseinChemistryAbsorbanceProtein degradationAnimal scienceSoybean mealIn vitroMealDigestion (alchemy)Composition (language)SolubilityFood scienceAmmoniaChromatographyBiochemistryBiologyFermentationOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To test the effects of year and processing plant on the nutritional value of canola meal (CM), 3 CM samples/yr were collected from each of 12 Canadian production plants over 4yr (total=144). Samples of CM were analyzed for differences in chemical composition and for in vitro ruminal protein degradability using the Michaelis-Menten inhibitor in vitro (MMIIV) method. In the MMIIV method, protein degradation rate (kd) was estimated by 2 methods: from net release (i.e., blank corrected) of (1) ammonia plus AA determined by o-phthaldialdehyde fluorescence (OPAF) assay or (2) ammonia, AA, plus oligopeptides determined by o-phthaldialdehyde absorbance (OPAA) assay; rumen-undegradable protein (RUP) was computed assuming passage rates of 0.16 and 0.06/h for, respectively, soluble and insoluble protein. Casein, solvent soybean meal (SSBM), and expeller soybean meal (ESBM) were included in all incubations as standard proteins. Differences among years and plants were assessed using the mixed procedures of SAS. Small but significant differences were found in CM among years for chemical composition, including N solubility; some of these differences may have been related to changes in our analytical methods over time. However, adjustment of degradation activity of individual in vitro incubations based on the mean degradation activity over all incubations yielded kd and RUP that did not differ by year using either assay. Simultaneously incubating CM samples from 2yr in the same in vitro runs confirmed that no year effects existed for kd or RUP. Differences existed in chemical composition of CM among the 12 processing plants over the 4yr of sample collection. Moreover, consistent differences in kd and RUP were observed among plants: kd ranged from 0.069 to 0.113/h (OPAA assay) and 0.075 to 0.120/h (OPAF assay), and RUP estimates ranged from 51 to 43% (OPAA assay) and 49 to 41% (OPAF assay). Regression of kd on insoluble N content of CM yielded correlation coefficients (R(2))=0.40 (OPAA assay) and 0.42 (OPAF assay), and regressions of kd on NDIN and N-fraction B3 yielded R(2)<0.02. Mean estimates from both OPAA and OPAF assays for casein, SSBM, ESBM, and CM were, respectively, kd=0.764, 0.161, 0.050, and 0.093/h and RUP=18, 33, 56, and 45%. A range of 8 percentage units from lowest to highest RUP suggests that substantial differences exist in metabolizable protein content of CM produced by different processing plants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207