Steer performance grazing hybrid bromegrass pastures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Producers in Saskatchewan require grazing information on new grass cultivars to improve production and quality of existing forage stands. Animal data are ultimately needed to validate the performance of these new varieties under grazed conditions. A 2-yr field experiment was conducted (2000–2001) to determine steer performance and species utilization when grazing crested wheatgrass (Agropyron pectiniforme R. & S.), smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.) and meadow bromegrass (Bromus riparius Rehm.) compared to hybrid bromegrass (Bromus riparius × Bromus inermis) pasture on an Orthic Black soil in east central Saskatchewan. Weight gain (kg d-1) was greater (P < 0.05) for steers grazing hybrid bromegrass pasture than crested wheatgrass pasture in the first year. However, in 2001, steers grazing crested wheatgrass pastures had greater (P < 0.05) average daily gain (ADG) than those grazing other pasture types. Total beef production (TBF) was greatest in both years (160 and 185 kg ha-1) from the hybrid bromegrass pastures. The greatest (P < 0.05) animal grazing days (AGD) were observed on hybrid bromegrass pastures. These results suggest that AC Knowles hybrid bromegrass is a suitable species for pasture use in Saskatchewan. Key words: Grazing, utilization, steer, grass pasture
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".