In vitro fermentation and in situ rumen degradation kinetics of summer forage brassica plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to assess and compare the nutrient concentration, the in vitro fermentation and the in situ rumen degradation characteristics of Brassica rapa ssp. rapa L. (turnips) and Brassica napus ssp. biennis L. (forage rape). Five varieties of each species were established in three field replicates and were organised in a randomised complete-block nested design. All varieties were harvested and further analysed for chemical composition, in vitro gas-production kinetics, volatile fatty acid (VFA) production and in situ degradation kinetics of dry matter (DM) and crude protein. Turnips showed higher ash, total sugars, raffinose, sucrose, glucose and fructose concentrations (P < 0.001) than did forage rape. Turnip varieties differed in their sucrose, glucose, fructose and total soluble sugar concentration (P < 0.001), whereas rape varieties differed in their neutral detergent fibre concentration (P = 0.004) and digestible organic matter on a DM basis (P < 0.01). Regarding DM-degradation parameters, turnips had a higher soluble fraction ‘a’ (P < 0.01) and a lower insoluble, but potentially degradable fraction ‘b’ (P < 0.01) than did rape, but the fractional degradation rate ‘c’ (0.18/h) was similar to that of rape. Rates of gas production were slightly higher (P = 0.018) for turnip than for rape. No effects for brassica species nor for varieties within species were detected (P > 0.05) for total in vitro VFA production, as well as for the relative proportions of acetate, propionate, butyrate, branch chained VFA and the actetate : propionate ratio. Our study showed that most of the differences that were observed in terms of chemical composition and degradation kinetics did not result in differences in in vitro fermentation products.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".