Milling of Canadian oats and barley for functional food ingredients: Oat bran and barley fibre-rich fractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Izydorczyk, M. S., McMillan, T., Bazin, S., Kletke, J., Dushnicky, L., Dexter, J., Chepurna, A. and Rossnagel, B. 2014. Milling of Canadian oats and barley for functional food ingredients: Oat bran and barley fibre-rich fractions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 573–586. Oats and barley are recognized for their valuable fibre constituents having protective and therapeutic effects against the development of diet-related disorders. Mixed linkage (1–3), (1–4)-β-D-glucans, the major dietary fibre constituents in oats and barley, have been linked to blood cholesterol lowering properties of these grains. The objective of this study was to compare oat bran and barley fibre-rich fractions (FRF) as two products with elevated levels of β-glucans and obtained by similar roller milling processes. The content of β-glucan in oat brans prepared from three different cultivars (AC Morgan, HiFi, and CDC ProFi) ranged from 7.90 to 9.50%, whereas the content of β-glucans in FRF prepared from three barley cultivars (CDC McGwire, CDC Fibar, and CDC Hilose) ranged from 9.31 to 18.19% (dwb). The yields of oat brans ranged from 44 to 49% and the yields of barley FRF from 39–49%. Both preparations contained higher amounts of arabinoxylans, proteins, and ash compared with the original grains. The oat brans were made up mainly of fragments containing the outer grain layers with a substantial portion of the subaleurone starchy endosperm attached to them, whereas the barley FRF consisted primarily of fragments containing the endosperm cell walls, with a smaller proportion of the outer grain tissues. The barley FRF contained smaller particles with broader distribution of particle size than the oat brans. The oat bran particles had higher bulk density and lower porosity than the barley FRF. Both preparations showed pronounced viscosity-building properties when dispersed in water at 45°C, but exhibited different viscosity profiles and differences in the attainable viscosity values.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".