MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063879821 · doi:10.4141/cjas09037

Pasture productivity, cattle productivity and metabolic status following fertilization of a grassland with liquid hog manure: A three-year study

2010· article· en· W2063879821 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
C. V. Wilson, M. Undi, Mario Tenuta, K. M. Wittenberg, Don Flaten, Denis O. Krause, Martin H. Entz, Richard A. Holley, Kim Ominski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaBeef Cattle Research CouncilDairy Farmers of ManitobaManitoba Rural Adaptation Council
KeywordsPastureForageGrazingAgronomyManureDry matterProductivityAnimal scienceGrasslandNutrientBiologyEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forage yield and quality, cattle and pasture productivity, and enteric methane (CH 4 ) 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 CH 4 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 CH 4 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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