Sweet Pearl Millet Yields and Nutritive Value as Influenced by Fertilization and Harvest Dates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sweet pearl millet [ Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br.] can be used for ethanol production from the extracted juice with residues used as livestock feed, but optimal fertilization and harvest dates are unknown for this “sugary stem” hybrid developed from forage pearl millet. We evaluated the effects of five equally spaced N fertilization rates (0–200 kg ha −1 ), K fertilization rates of 0 and 66 kg ha −1 , and four harvest dates (approximately every 15 d from early or mid‐August in 2007 and 2008) on water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) concentration and yield, dry matter (DM) yield, and nutritive value of sweet pearl millet, at two sites with 2300 to 2500 and 2900 to 3100 crop heat units (CHU) in Québec, Canada. Delaying harvest dates increased DM (22–99%) and WSC yields (98–173%), and WSC concentration but decreased N concentration by 36% and neutral detergent fiber digestibility (dNDF) by 19%. Increasing N fertilization increased DM and WSC yields, and N concentration, but had no effects on WSC concentration, and decreased dNDF moderately. Potassium fertilization had limited effects on DM and WSC yields, WSC concentration, and on most attributes of nutritive value. Fertilization with 78 to 90 kg N ha −1 and an accumulation of 2100 to 2200 CHU corresponding to harvest dates in September are required to maximize WSC yield (1.86–2.83 Mg ha −1 ) of sweet pearl millet in eastern Canada. Maximizing WSC yield with the goal of producing ethanol, however, would result in reduced 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".