MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147833373 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.6589

Improving ryegrass‐clover pasture dry matter yield and urea efficiency with gibberellic acid

2014· article· en· W2147833373 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Zaman, A. Ghani, Leonid V. Kurepin, Richard P. Pharis, Shabana Khan, Terry J Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUreaDry matterPastureChemistryAgronomyGibberellic acidYield (engineering)RuminantNitrogenAnimal scienceOrganic matterShootBiologyBiochemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The effects of spraying gibberellic acid (GA3) at 20 or 30 g ha(-1), with or without application of urea, on pasture dry matter (DM) yield, herbage nitrogen (N) concentration and feed quality were investigated in 2011 and 2012 for managed pastoral systems in New Zealand across a range of sites, in both autumn and spring. RESULTS: On the Waikato site (autumn and spring, 2012), and at all five sites in 2011, liquid urea applied with GA3 at 20 or 30 g ha(-1) consistently produced significantly higher pasture shoot DM yield, relative to liquid urea alone. Application of GA3 alone reduced feed quality by lowering metabolizable energy, crude protein and organic matter digestibility values. However, a reduced feed quality was not observed when GA3 was applied together with liquid urea. Liquid urea applied with GA3 also reduced total N and nitrate-N concentration in herbage, relative to liquid urea applied alone. CONCLUSION: Application of GA3 together with liquid urea provides an opportunity for the strategic use of urea to meet both production and environmental goals.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207