MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082917535 · doi:10.3390/ani4040767

Effects of Adding Corn Dried Distiller Grains with Solubles (DDGS) to the Dairy Cow Diet and Effects of Bedding in Dairy Cow Slurry on Fugitive Methane Emissions

2014· article· en· W2082917535 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel I. Massé, Guillaume Jarret, C. Benchaar, F. Hassanat

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Dairy CommissionDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsSlurryStrawChemistryAnimal scienceFood scienceRuminantAgronomyEnvironmental scienceBiologyEnvironmental engineeringPasture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The specific objectives of this experiment were to investigate the effects of adding 10% or 30% corn dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) to the dairy cow diet and the effects of bedding type (wood shavings, straw or peat moss) in dairy slurry on fugitive CH₄ emissions. The addition of DDGS10 to the dairy cow diet significantly increased (29%) the daily amount of fat excreted in slurry compared to the control diet. The inclusion of DDGS30 in the diet increased the daily amounts of excreted DM, volatile solids (VS), fat, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and hemicellulose by 18%, 18%, 70%, 30%, 15% and 53%, respectively, compared to the control diet. During the storage experiment, daily fugitive CH₄ emissions showed a significant increase of 15% (p < 0.05) for the slurry resulting from the corn DDGS30 diet. The addition of wood shavings and straw did not have a significant effect on daily fugitive CH₄ emissions relative to the control diet, whereas the addition of peat moss caused a significant increase of 27% (p < 0.05) in fugitive CH₄ emissions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207