MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131467068 · doi:10.4141/a03-092

Management strategies to improve cow-calf productivity on meadow bromegrass pastures

2004· article· en· W2131467068 on OpenAlexaffvenue
J. C. Kopp, K. M. Wittenberg, W. P. McCaughey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersElanco Animal Health
KeywordsPastureGrazingForageLegumeAgronomyBiologyMonensinAnimal scienceHuman fertilizationProductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 4-yr experiment was conducted to determine the effects of fertilization, incorporation of a legume and use of the Rumensin®-controlled release capsules (CRC) on productivity of cow-calf pairs grazing meadow bromegrass (Bromus biebersteinii Roem & Schult.). Four pasture treatments (T), alfalfa-grass fertilized (AF), alfalfa-grass unfertilized (AU), grass-only fertilized (GF) and grass-only unfertilized (GU), each replicated twice were compared. The eight 3.7-ha pastures were split into five equally sized paddocks and rotationally stocked with first-calf cows in 1995 and 1998, and with mature cows in 1996 and 1997. Half of the cows on each pasture received a Rumensin® CRC 1 wk prior to the start of the pasture season. Cow DMI was not influenced by fertilization or incorporation of a legume. However, cows treated with monensin consumed less (2.3% BW) compared to the control cows (2.5% BW, P < 0.05). Incorporation of alfalfa and fertilization improved pasture quality and resulted in higher CP and lower NDF content in forage selected by the animals. Monensin improved (P < 0.05) cow average daily gain (ADG, kg d-1) when grazing unfertilized grass and alfalfa-grass pastures, but did not influence gains of cows on fertilized pastures. Fertilizer application, legume incorporation and monensin administration did not affect milk yield or milk composition. Despite differences in diet quality, calf ADG for AU, AF, and GF were similar. However, calf ADG was lower for GU pastures (P < 0.05), probably as a result of the high fibre and low protein content of this pasture treatment. Both incorporation of alfalfa and fertilization increased total calf gain (kg ha-1); the greatest improvement was associated with fertilization. There were, however, economic advantages to legume incorporation, as the cost of the additional gain for GF and AF pastures averaged $1.08 and $0.79 kg-1 ha-1, and no extra costs were incurred for AU. Key words: Beef cows, calves, milk yield, pasture productivity, alfalfa, meadow bromegrass

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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