High Stalk Sugar Corn: A Potential Biofuel Crop for Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most energy efficient systems of biofuel production uses the sugar extracted from sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) for fermentation into ethanol; while sugarcane will not grow in Canada, corn (Zea mays L.), another C4 crop can. The overall objective of our study was to determine if there was corn germplasm, adapted to the short‐season regions of Canada, with high stalk sugar content. Thirty‐nine genotypes from diverse backgrounds were evaluated for stalk sucrose accumulation and associated traits (juice percentage, plant height, weight, and moisture) in field trials from 2007 to 2009. Genotypic differences for stalk sucrose and juice percentage were highly significant. Mean stalk sucrose ranged from 5.1 to 16.4 Brix (oBx) and fresh biomass from 45 to 135 Mg ha−1 suggesting the presence of exploitable genetic variation. Mean stalk sucrose concentration was significantly higher in plants where pollination was prevented. Calculated sucrose yield of experimental hybrids ranged from 4.3 to 6.0 Mg ha−1. At the current conversion efficiency, the products of sucrose and fresh biomass can be translated into 3600 L ha−1 ethanol plus 47 Mg ha−1 silage, indicating that this high stalk sugar corn (or “sugarcorn”) would be a valuable and an economically viable crop for Canada and elsewhere.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".