Economics of backgrounding calves on Italian ryegrass (<i>Lolium multiflorum</i>) pastures in the Aspen Parkland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Annual ryegrass or Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) can be used to improve pasture productivity through extension of the grazing season in the Aspen parkland of western Canada. A study conducted at Agriculture and Agri Food Canada Melfort, SK. and Lacombe, AB, showed that weaned calves could successfully graze Italian ryegrass late into the fall as part of the overall backgrounding system. Spring-seeded annual Italian ryegrass produced between 4300 and 6700 kg total dry matter per hectare across all sites and had an average crude protein content of 184 g kg-1 and in vitro DM digestibility of 640 g kg-1. Spring calves were early weaned in late August or conventionally weaned in October and backgrounded on Italian ryegrass pasture or a silage-based ration in drylot pens. The cost of growing Italian ryegrass was $339 ha-1 resulting in a grazing cost per day of $0.31–$0.68 depending upon the number of grazing days per ha. There were no differences in performance of animals backgrounded on Italian ryegrass pasture compared with those backgrounded in the feedlot. The total cost per head for backgrounding early-weaned calves on Italian ryegrass and finished in a feedlot was $398 compared with $429 for early-weaned calves backgrounded and finished in a feedlot, while conventionally weaned calves backgrounded and finished in a feedlot cost $418. Backgrounding calves on Italian ryegrass pasture reduced the number of days in the feedlot along with the associated cost of yardage and stored feed. Backgrounding calves in a feedlot had a yardage charge of $0.40 or higher, which added a cost in addition to stored feed costs of the ration. Backgrounding calves on extended season grazing of Italian ryegrass reduced health problems due to elimination of mixing animals in feedlot pens, less need for stored feed including storage and feeding losses and less labour to feed the cattle and haul manure in the spring. Backgrounding calves on high-quality fall pasture was more economical than backgrounding in a feedlot system. Key words: Background, steer, pasture, economics
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 | 0.001 | 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".