Influence of Long‐Term Application of Manure Type and Bedding on Yield, Protein, Fiber, and Energy Value of Irrigated Feed Barley
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The long‐term effect of land application of manure type (composted [CM] vs. stockpiled [SM] manure), bedding (wood‐chips [WD] vs. straw [ST]), and application rate on yield, protein, fiber, and energy value of feed barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) for beef cattle ( Bos taurus ) is unknown. Dry matter yield and feed quality of irrigated feed barley was measured on a clay loam soil after 5 (2002), 8 (2005), and 12 yr (2009) of annual applications of CM or SM feedlot manure with WD or ST bedding at three application rates (13, 39, 77 Mg ha −1 dry wt.). The treatments also included an unamended control and inorganic fertilizer treatment. Mean yields in 2005 were significantly ( P ≤ 0.05) greater for CM–ST than SM–WD but CM–ST was similar to SM–ST and CM–WD. Yields in 2009 were significantly lower for CM–WD compared to the other three treatments, and were greater for ST‐13 and WD‐77 compared to WD‐13. Crude protein was greater for SM than CM when averaged over the 3 yr. Bedding influenced crude and soluble protein but the effects depended on interactions with rate and year. For example, crude and soluble protein in 2009 was greater for ST than WD at the 39 and 77 Mg ha −1 rates. Manure type and bedding may be practices to manage feed barley yield and protein, but will likely have little or no effect on the fiber content and energy value of the feed.
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".