MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1988261766 · doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0429

Nutritive Value of Timothy Fertilized with Chloride or Chloride-Containing Liquid Swine Manure

2008· article· en· W1988261766 on OpenAlexafffund
Sophie Pelletier, Gaëtan F. Tremblay, Gilles Bélanger, Martin H. Chantigny, Philippe Séguin, R. Drapeau, G. Allard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcGill UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
KeywordsChlorideManureAnimal scienceValue (mathematics)ChemistryLiquid manureAgronomyMathematicsBiologyOrganic chemistryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chloride fertilization of timothy (Phleum pratense L.) decreases forage dietary cation-anion difference to an acceptable value [(<250 mmol(c)/kg of dry matter (DM)] for dry dairy cows (Bos taurus). However, high Cl concentrations in forages as a result of fertilization might affect nutritive value. Two experiments were used to evaluate the effects of chloride fertilization on timothy spring growth and summer regrowth by determining concentrations of crude protein and neutral detergent fiber (NDF), in vitro true digestibility of DM (IVTD), and in vitro digestibility of NDF (dNDF). In an inorganic fertilization experiment, forages grown at 4 locations were fertilized with CaCl(2) (0, 80, 160, and 240 kg of Cl/ha per yr) or NH(4)Cl (160 kg of Cl/ha per yr) in combination with 2 N application rates (70 and 140 kg of N/ha per yr). The increase in Cl fertilization rate affected forage NDF concentration (+1.4%), IVTD (-0.8%), and dNDF (-1.2%) only at the highest rate of N fertilization, but this effect was not of biological importance. Crude protein concentration was not affected by Cl fertilization. Both Cl fertilizer types had a similar impact on forage nutritive value. In an organic fertilization experiment, forages grown at 2 locations received 1 of 7 experimental treatments [unfertilized control, inorganic fertilizer, raw liquid swine manure (LSM), and liquid fractions of 4 pretreated LSM types (decanted, filtered, anaerobically digested, and flocculated)] that provided, respectively, 0, 60, 41, 44, 44, 36, and 101 kg of Cl/ha per yr. The last 6 fertilizer treatments also provided 140 kg of N/ha per yr. The IVTD, dNDF, and concentration of NDF in timothy forage were not affected by the Cl content of the different LSM types. Nitrogen fertilization increased concentration of forage NDF and decreased IVTD and dNDF, but this effect was not biologically important. In both experiments, soil types and harvests had a negligible effect on forage nutritive value. Organic or inorganic Cl fertilizers applied to decrease timothy dietary cation-anion difference have little or no effect on forage nutritive value.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→