The nutritive value for ruminants of thin stillage and distillers' grains derived from wheat, rye, triticale and barley
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was conducted to determine nutrient degradabilities of thin stillages and distillers' grains derived from wheat-, rye-, triticale- and barley-based ethanol production. In vitro protein degradabilities of wheat, rye, triticale and barley thin stillages were determined using a protease enzyme assay. One ruminally fistulated cow was used to determine ruminal nutrient degradabilities for wheat, rye, triticale and barley distillers' grains. Results of the in vitro study showed that the soluble protein fraction was highest for rye thin stillage and lowest for barley thin stillage. The degradation rate of the slowly degradable protein fraction was higher for wheat and triticale thin stillage than rye thin stillage and was higher for rye than barley thin stillage. Effective degradability of crude protein followed the order rye (659 g kg−1) > triticale (632 g kg−1) > wheat (608 g kg−1) > barley (482 g kg−1) thin stillage. Ruminal degradability of dry matter was highest for rye and lowest for barley distillers' grains. Ruminal degradability of dry matter was also higher for wheat than triticale distillers' grains. Crude protein from barley distillers' grains had a lower ruminal degradability relative to crude protein from wheat and rye distillers' grains. Ruminal degradability of neutral detergent fibre was highest for rye distillers' grains (470 g kg−1), intermediate for wheat and triticale distillers' grains (average 445 g kg−1) and lowest for barley distillers' grains (342 g kg−1). It was concluded that thin stillage and distillers' grains derived from barley had a lower nutritive value for ruminants compared with those derived from wheat, rye and triticale. © 2000 Society of Chemical Industry
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 | 0.001 | 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".