Dry Matter Digestion Kinetics of Two Varieties of Barley Grain Sown with Different Seeding and Nitrogen Fertilization Rates in Four Different Sites Across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to determine the differences in the rate and extent of dry matter digestion between barley subjected to differing agronomic variables.Two malting barley varieties, Copeland and Metcalfe were seeded at rates of 200 and 400 plants/m 2 .Each of these varieties received nitrogen fertilizer at rates of 0, 30, 60 and 120 kg/ha, resulting in a total of 20 different barley grain samples.Samples were ground through a 6mm screen and approximately 3 g of each weighed into 50 μm Dacron bags and sealed.The bags were incubated in three ruminally cannulated Holstein cattle for periods of 0, 3, 6 and 24 h.Using the data obtained from these incubations, rates of digestion were able to be predicted.The soluble fraction ranged from 0.229-0.327,the slowly degradable fraction ranged from 0.461-0.656,and the undegradable fraction ranged from 0.038-0.299.The rates of digestion ranged from 0.127-0.165h -1 and the effective degradability ranged from 0.527-0.757.At the Canora location, the Copeland samples which received 120 kg/ha of nitrogen fertilizer had a significantly lower (p = 0.013) soluble fraction than the rest of the samples at that location.A significant interaction (p = 0.009) was seen between the seeding rate and nitrogen fertilizer application with samples from the Canora location, as well as significant differences (p = 0.029) between nitrogen application rates in samples from the Indian head location.The rate of digestion of samples from the Indian head location differed (p = 0.020) between the two seeding rates, with samples seeded at 200 seed/m 2 having a slightly higher rate of degradation.Differences in the effective degradability were seen between the different nitrogen application rates with samples from both the Canora and Indian head locations, as well as an (p = 0.004) interaction between the seeding rate and nitrogen fertilizer application rate.Although there was not a clear correlation between the different variables, both nitrogen application and seeding rate did have a significant effect on the rates and extent of digestion across each of the four locations.(
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".