Effects of the Environment, Cultivar, Maturity, and Preservation Method on Red Clover Isoflavone Concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) contains isoflavones that are of interest because of their benefits for human health as well as their adverse effects on the fertility of farm animals. A series of field experiments was conducted in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada, to determine the effects of the environment, cultivar, plant maturity, plant part, and preservation method on the concentration of the two predominant isoflavones in red clover, formononetin and biochanin A. In a multi-year, multisite trial, the total isoflavone concentration in 10 cultivars ranged between 8,923 and 12,753 microg g(-1) of DM averaged across sites, harvests, and years. Despite strong environmental effects, the cultivar "Start" consistently had the lowest isoflavone concentrations, with few differences observed among other cultivars. Across stages of maturity, leaves were found to have the highest isoflavone concentration followed by stems and inflorescences (11,970, 4,896, and 3,297 microg g(-1) of DM, respectively). Changes in isoflavone concentrations with increasing maturity varied depending on the plant part. Overall, highest isoflavone concentrations were found in leaves and stems during the vegetative stages, with the formononetin concentration declining until plants initiated flowering, especially in stems, with concentrations then stabilized in both parts. Upon initiation, inflorescences contained similar isoflavone concentrations than leaves, but concentrations decreased rapidly during flower development to fall even below those observed in stems. Inflorescences then had isoflavone concentrations that were as much as 11 times lower than leaves. Fresh herbage contained higher formononetin and total isoflavone concentrations than did silage and hay (14,464, 12,200, and 11,604 microg g(-1) of DM, respectively). The isoflavone concentration in field-grown red clover is thus high but can be affected by a range of agronomic factors.
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".