MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139479688 · doi:10.4141/cjas2011-082

Bioperformance evaluation of various summer pasture and winter feeding strategies for cow-calf production

2012· article· en· W2139479688 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Getahun Legesse, J. A. Small, E. Kebreab, G. H. Crow, H. C. Block, Clayton Robins, Mohammad Khakbazan, W. P. McCaughey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPastureGrazingStrawAnimal scienceIce calvingWeaningSilageBiologyHayAgronomyCow-calfPerennial plantLactationHerdPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legesse, G., Small, J. A., Scott, S. L., Kebreab, E., Crow, G. H., Block, H. C., Robins, C. D., Khakbazan, M. and McCaughey, W. P. 2012. Bioperformance evaluation of various summer pasture and winter feeding strategies for cow-calf production. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 89–102. Bioperformance of two summer pasture and four winter feeding cow-calf production strategies in the western Canadian Parkland was evaluated. Diet composition and animal data were collected over 5 production years. Each production year began with fixed-time artificial insemination (TAI) of cows and turnout of cow-calf pairs (n=288 yr−1 including 76 primiparous replacement cows) assigned to either alfalfa-grass (AG, n=9 paddocks) or grass (G, n=9 paddocks) pastures until weaning. Post-weaning, pregnant cows (n=240 yr−1) were assigned to either extended-grazing (EG, n=120) of dormant regrowth of perennial pastures and swathed annual crops, or one of three diets fed in a drylot (DL): hay (HY, n=40), straw/barley (SB, n=40; 70% oat straw:30% steam-rolled barley grain DM), and silage/straw (SS, n=40; 40% barley silage:60% oat straw DM). Common diets were used for all treatment groups between the weaning and winter feeding period, as well as between the pre-calving and summer grazing period. Cow and calf body weight (BW) gains were higher (P<0.05) for AG than G pasture until the third production year and the advantage diminished as the carrying capacity declined. The latter may be attributed to a lack of spring/summer moisture. Further, G pastures required more nitrogen fertilizer to achieve the same level of bioperformance as that of AG pastures in years 4 and 5. Cows in the EG treatment maintained BW better than those in the DL treatment (especially those cows receiving the SS diet) except in year 5 (P<0.05) in which drought resulted in lower body weights for cows in the EG treatment. On all treatments, cows maintained BCS that supported reproductive function; however, fertility to TAI was lowest (P<0.05) in years 4 and 5. Cows in the DL group had a 1.8 times greater risk of being culled before turnout and as a result lower (P<0.05) rates of calf survival to weaning. In conclusion, AG pastures and EG are important alternatives to further develop for cow-calf production in western Canada.

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)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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