MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046851858 · doi:10.4141/a05-081

Effect of pasture type (alfalfa vs. grass) on methane and carbon dioxide production by yearling beef heifers

2006· article· en· W2046851858 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Alex V. Chaves, L. C. Thompson, A. D. Iwaasa, Susan Scott, Merle S. Olson, C. Benchaar, D. M. Veira, Tim A. McAllister

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPastureGrazingDry matterAnimal scienceForageCarbon dioxideBeef cattleMethaneAgronomyChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to determine effect of pasture type on methane and carbon dioxide production by heifers grazing alfalfa or grass pastures at three sites across western Canada. All pastures were intensively managed so that heifers had ad libitum access to new forage material each day, and pastures were back-fenced to prevent the heifers accessing previously grazed areas. As measured using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) tracer technique, total methane production at the Brandon, MB, and Swift Current, SK, sites was unaffected by pasture type (averaging 157.4 g CH 4 head -1 d -1 ), whereas at Lethbridge, AB, heifers grazing alfalfa produced more methane than did those on the grass pasture (162.8 vs. 113.5 g CH 4 head -1 d -1 ; P < 0.05). Calculated with dry matter intake (DMI) estimated by alkane analysis, methane production per unit DMI was 3 9% lower from heifers consuming grass compared with alfalfa (P < 0.001). When intakes were estimated by the Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System (CNCPS) model, CH 4 production kg -1 DMI did not differ (P > 0.05) between pasture types. Loss of gross energy intake (GEI) to methane, as estimated by alkane analysis, was 6.9% for heifers grazing grass, and 9.6% for heifers grazing alfalfa (P < 0.001). Calculated using CNCPS, losses were similar (P > 0.05) between grass and alfalfa (5.8 vs. 6.2% of GEI, respectively). Carbon dioxide production per unit DMI did not differ between pasture types, irrespective of method used to estimate intake (alkanes or CNCPS). The method used to predict intake can have a major influence on calculated values when methane emissions are expressed as a percentage of GEI in grazing ruminants. At each site, CH 4 emissions and in vitro digestibility of the forage were influenced by the composition of the stand and the maturity of the forage at the time of harvest. Key words: Alfalfa, grass, grazing, legume, methane emissions

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations122
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207