Fractionation of canola meal using sieving technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study explored the potential for the production of canola meal (CM) fractions of different chemical and nutritive composition. Three meals from conventional black- and yellow-seeded Brassica napus and Brassica juncea canola were subjected to sieving. The use of sieves from 250 to 600 µm resulted in the production of fractions fine 1, fine 2, medium, and coarse. When compared with the parent meals, the content of total dietary fiber of fractions fine 1 and 2 decreased from 300 to 214 and 267 g kg−1 for conventional CM, 270 to 216 and 234 g kg−1 for B. napus yellow, and 255 to 153 and 187 g kg−1 for B. juncea meal. Crude protein increased from 368 to 420 and 396 g kg−1 for conventional CM, 410 to 436 and 430 g kg−1 for yellow CM, and 423 to 479 and 468 g kg−1 for B. juncea meal. The effects of three parent meals and their respective fractions fine 1 and 2 were evaluated in a growth performance experiment with broiler chickens. There was no significant effect of CM diets on growth performance indicating that CM and its low-fiber fractions could effectively replace soybean meal in diets for young poultry.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".