Comparative trends in forage nutritional quality across the growing season in thirteen grasses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is to convert erodible cropland to perennial vegetation. Under severe drought, CRP land is frequently utilized for grazing; thus, there is a need to better understand trends in forage nutritional quality in species used in CRP plantings. This study evaluated 13 cool-season irrigated and dryland grasses from May to August and regrowth from September to November in northern Utah during 2004 and 2005 for crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD), in vitro true digestibility (IVTD), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) values. Species, sampling date, year, and sampling date × species interaction had a significant (P < 0.05) effect on CP, NDFD, IVTD, and NDF values. From May to August, there was a strong linear decline in CP, NDFD, and IVTD values. Mean CP values ranged from 68 to 251 g kg−1 in all species examined. Orchardgrass, smooth bromegrass, RS-hybrid, and crested wheatgrass had CP, NDFD, and IVTD values similar to orchardgrass and timothy, but less than perennial ryegrass. Crested wheatgrass had NDF values similar to timothy, but less than orchardgrass. Crested wheatgrass and smooth bromegrass had the greatest nutritional quality and were often similar to orchardgrass, tall fescue, and timothy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 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".