Effect of perennial forage system on forage characteristics, soil nutrients, cow performance, and system economics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two perennial forage systems were evaluated in a 3-yr study for their effect on forage biomass and nutritive value, botanical composition, soil nutrients, forage disappearance, beef cow performance, and economic analysis. Spring-calving, dry, pregnant Bos taurus beef cows [yr 1 (n = 60), 632 ± 8 kg; yr 2 (n = 60), 638 ± 5 kg; yr 3 (n = 48), 653 ± 5 kg] were managed in 1 of 2 replicated (n = 3) forage systems: (1) grazing stockpiled perennial forage [TDN = 52.5, CP = 10.7 (%DM); SPF] in field paddocks or (2) drylot pen feeding round bale hay [TDN = 52.7, CP = 10.0 (%DM); HY]. Forage utilization was greater (P = 0.01) for HY cows in all years (94%) compared with yr-1 and yr-2 SPF cows (58 and 78%, respectively). Forage disappearance was greater (P = 0.01) for yr-3 SPF cows than HY system cows; however, supplement was greater (P = 0.01) for SPF cows compared with HY cows during the study period. Soil NO3-N (P = 0.02) and organic carbon (P = 0.01) amounts at the 0- to 30-cm soil depth were greater in SPF paddocks than HY paddocks. Body weight and BCS did not differ (P > 0.05) for cows in either SPF or HY systems. Averaged over 3-yr, SPF total system costs were 14% less (P = 0.01) compared with the HY system. Results suggest field grazing stockpiled perennial forages in western Canada can be a viable strategy without any negative effect to beef cow performance.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it