MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2133752928 · doi:10.4141/a03-062

Predicted methane emissions and metabolizable energy intakes of steers grazing a grass/alfalfa pasture and finished in a feedlot or at pasture using the GrassGro decision support tool

2004· article· en· W2133752928 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
R. D. H. Cohen, James P. Stevens, Andrew D. Moore, J. R. Donnelly, M. Freer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrazingPastureFeedlotDry matterAgronomyAnimal scienceBeef cattleChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dry matter intakes (DMI) and methane (CH4) emissions from steers grazing alfalfa/(Medicago sativa L)/meadow bromegrass (Bromus biebersteinii Roem & Schult.)/Russian wild ryegrass [Psathyrostachys juncea (Fisch.) Nevski] at 1.1 and 2.2 steers ha-1 in continuous and rotational grazing systems at Brandon, Manitoba, during the 1994 grazing season were predicted using the GrassGro decision support tool and compared with those reported from a field experiment. Observed DMI (13.82 ± 0.39 kg d-1) did not differ significantly (P = 0.052) from predicted DMI (12.10 ± 0.19 kg d-1). Mean predicted CH4 (278.5 ± 2.2 g d-1) was greater (P < 0.002) than field observations (195.8 ± 9.7 g d-1). This difference may reflect the difficulty of ensuring total collection of all CH4 emitted in a field experiment. GrassGro predicted that feeding a barley supplement to the steers while at pasture would cause a small though significant increase (P < 0.001) in mean daily emissions of CH4 (287.8 ± 1.9 g d-1) compared with unsupplemented steers (274.1 ± 2.9 g d-1). However, when CH4 emissions were compared as g kg-1 liveweight gain (LWG), they were less (P < 0.0001) for supplemented (133.2 ± 6.4 g kg-1 LWG) than unsupplemented steers (199.1 ± 5.9 g kg-1 LWG). In addition, supplementing barley at pasture would reduce (P < 0.0001) the total emissions of CH4 (38.7 ± 2.1 kg) compared with backgrounding at pasture and finishing in a feedlot (54.4 ± 1.1 kg). This would also reduce (P < 0.001) the metabolizable energy intake (MEI) required for liveweight gain (68.3 ± 1.94 vs. 87.2 ± 1.20 MJ MEI kg-1 liveweight gain). We conclude that finishing cattle at pasture will reduce the total emissions of CH4 and increase the efficiency of conversion of feed energy to liveweight gain when compared with backgrounding at pasture and finishing in a feedlot. Key words: Methane, steers, grass, alfalfa, pasture, barley, feedlot, metabolizable energy intake

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→