Forage Yield and Quality of Chicory, Birdsfoot Trefoil, and Alfalfa During the Establishment Year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a study to evaluate alternative forages for farmed deer, we compared forage yields and quality of birdsfoot trefoil ( Lotus corniculatus ) and forage chicory ( Cichorium intybus ) with that of alfalfa ( Medicago sativa ) in north central Alberta, Canada. Despite similar plant densities among the three species, the foliar cover of chicory averaged 76%, 20% greater than alfalfa and 50% greater than trefoil. Alfalfa had higher plant height, dry matter yields, and crude protein concentrations compared to chicory and trefoil, leading to crude protein yields nearly double that of the other forages. Alfalfa also had superior over-winter persistence. Birdsfoot trefoil stands exhibited poor competitiveness in the year of establishment, as demonstrated by high weed and volunteer clover biomass. Chicory had lower neutral detergent fiber concentrations compared to the other forages, leading to a favorable neutral detergent soluble value of 590 g kg -1 DM, 6% greater than that of trefoil. In contrast, tannin concentrations were greatest in trefoil (nearly 60 g kg -1 DM), well above those in the other forages (<20 g kg -1 DM). These results highlight the potential of chicory for forage production, as well as the importance of mixing alfalfa with alternative forages to optimize forage yield and quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".