Insights into Grain Milling and Fractionation Practices for Improved Food Sustainability with Emphasis on Wheat and Peas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cereal grains and pulses are staple foods worldwide, being the primary supply of energy, protein, and fiber in human diets. The current practice of milling and fractionation yields large quantities of byproducts and waste, which are largely downgraded and end up as animal feeds or fertilizers. This adversely affects food security and the environment, and definitely implies an urgent need for a sustainable grain processing system to rectify the current issues, particularly the management of waste and excessive use of water and energy. The current review intends to discuss the limitations and flaws of the existing practice of grain milling and fractionation, along with potential solutions to make it more sustainable, with an emphasis on wheat and peas as common fractionation crops. This review discusses a proposed sustainable grain processing system for the fractionation of wheat or peas into flour, protein, starch, and value-added components. The proposed system is a hybrid model that combines dry and wet fractionation processes in conjunction with the implementation of three principles, namely, integration, recycling, and upcycling, to improve component separation efficiency and value addition and minimize grain milling waste. The three principles are critical in making grain processing more efficient in terms of the management of waste and resources. Overall, this review provides potential solutions for how to make the grain processing system more sustainable.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".