A Preliminary Study of Nutritional Quality of Five Drought Tolerant Millets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seeds from greenhouse-grown plants of five food millet crops—[barnyard millet (Echinochloa frumentacea Link.), finger millet (Eleusine coracana Gaertn.), kodo millet (Paspalum scrobiculatum L.), little millet (Panicum sumatrense Roth ex Roem. & Schult.), and proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.)] contained 10.4, 5.5, 7.2, 1.3, and 17.1 percent protein; 69, 29, 239, 105, and 32 Fe (mg/100 g); and 33, 22, 23, 31, and 37 (mg/100 g) Zn, respectively. Concentrations (g/100 g) of oil in seeds varied from 1.32 for finger millet to 3.58 for little millet. The oil concentrations for barnyard, kodo, and proso millets were 1.59, 1.64, and 3.36 g/100 g, respectively. Predominant fatty acid in the oil in the seed of these millets was C18:2 followed by C18:1, and C16:0. Concentration of omega-3 fatty acid (a heart-healthy oil) was 1.06, 0.62, 1.01, 0.91, and 3.11 g/100 g in barnyard, kodo, little, proso, and finger millet, respectively. Oils from seeds of these millet crops were essentially free from concentration of anti-nutritive fatty acid C22:1 (Erucic acid). Concentrations (g/100 g) of total sugars varied from 0.96 for barnyard millet to 2.09 for finger millet. The total sugar concentrations for kodo, little, and proso millets were 1.81, 1.95, and 1.99 g/100 g, respectively. Fructose, glucose, sucrose, maltose, raffinose, and stachyose concentrations varied from 0.05 to 0.47, 0.44 to 0.85, 0.44 to 0.98, 0.02 to 0.33, 0.005 to 0.083, and 0.002 to 0.053, respectively for barnyard, kodo, little, proso, and finger millet, respectively. Results indicated that these millet crops have potential as sources of healthy food and it might be worthwhile to further study their production potential.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".