Spring Triticale Varieties Forage Yield, Nutrients Composition and Suitability for Beef Cattle Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The objective was to explore the potentials of five spring triticale (x<em>Triticosecale </em>Wittmack) varieties (AC Ultima, Bunker, Companion, Pronghorn, Taza and Tyndal) for integration into beef cattle feeding systems in the north western Alberta, Canada. This was carried out over four growing seasons (2009 to 2012) at different sites, using RCBD in each year. The crop was cut at late milk stage to determine the silage (SY), dry matter (DMY) and protein (CPY) yields, and nutrition quality. The mean DMY was similar (P<em> </em>&gt; 0.05) for all varieties, ranging from 8.14 to 8.53 t ha<sup>-1</sup>. The forage DM was higher (P<em> </em>&lt;<em> </em>0.05) in 2009 and 2012 growing seasons (8.91 and 9.40 t ha<sup>-1</sup>, respectively) and lower in 2010 growing season (5.93 t ha<sup>-1</sup>) than in 2011 (8.33 t ha<sup>-1</sup>). The forage nutritive values revealed that tested varieties have potentials in terms of protein (7.72-8.32%) and some macro (particularly Ca &amp; K) and micro (especially Fe &amp; Mn) mineral elements and energy contents (62.1-64.1% TDN, 1.51-1.57 Mcal kg<sup>-1</sup>ME) for pregnant cows that are in the second and third trimester stages. Levels of relative feed value (RFV) was high (110-121) and more than the minimum suggested RFV for mature beef cattle. But levels of P, Mg, Na, S, Cu and Zn were insufficient to meet the suggested amounts needed by a dry gestating cow. The growing seasons appeared to have significant (P &lt; 0.05) effects on most of the measured parameters. The implications of these findings on uses of triticale forage in ruminant nutrition and the need for more studies are discussed.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".