Pasture productivity, cattle productivity and metabolic status following fertilization of a grassland with liquid hog manure: A three-year study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forage yield and quality, cattle and pasture productivity, and enteric methane (CH4) emissions were determined from grass pastures receiving liquid hog manure. Three treatments were evaluated: grass pastures receiving no manure (Control), grass pastures receiving liquid hog manure applied as a single application of 142 ± 20 kg available N ha-1 in the spring (Single) or a split application of 70 ± 6 kg available N ha-1 in both the spring and autumn (Split). Each treatment was represented by two paddocks. The study was carried out over three grazing seasons, from 2004 to 2006, with each grazing season divided into three, 28-d periods. Growing steers (338 ± 32 kg) were introduced into pastures in early summer (May-June) of each year. Standing biomass, measured using quadrats, averaged 1.2, 2.6, and 2.0 ± 0.44 t dry matter (DM) ha-1 for Control, Split and Single pastures, respectively, and was not influenced (P = 0.13) by liquid hog manure application. Liquid hog manure application caused a shift in pasture grasses resulting in a predominance of quackgrass [Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski]. Nutrient profiles of forage samples collected by hand plucking showed no treatment response for forage gross energy (GE; P = 0.18) and neutral detergent fibre (NDF; P = 0.19), but forage crude protein (CP) (P = 0.027) as well as ash (P = 0.002), K (P = 0.001), P (P = 0.001), and Mg (P = 0.001) concentrations increased with manure application. Liquid hog manure application did not influence dry matter intake (DMI) (P = 0.56), GE intake (P = 0.58), and NDF intake (P = 0.79) of grass forages. Higher CP intake of steers on Split and Single pastures resulted in higher (P = 0.001) serum urea N (5.7 and 5.9 ± 0.42 mmol L-1, respectively) compared with steers grazing Control pastures, 2.5 ± 0.42 mmol L-1. Enteric CH4 emissions (L d-1) tended to be lower (P = 0.09) in cattle grazing the Split pasture treatment. Though application of liquid hog manure did not improve individual animal gains, pasture carrying capacity increased (P = 0.001) from 89 to 324 grazing days ha-1 and liveweight gain increased (P = 0.001) from 100 to 329 kg ha-1 in Control and manured pastures, respectively. Application of liquid hog manure to grasslands generated significant benefits through improved forage quality and pasture productivity measured as carrying capacity and liveweight gain. Split liquid hog manure application may have a further benefit in terms of improved carrying capacity and lower enteric CH4 emissions. Key words: Liquid hog manure, enteric methane, beef cattle, carrying capacity, serum urea nitrogen
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".