Evaluation of Low Heat Unit Corn Hybrids Compared to Barley for Forage Yield and Quality on the Canadian Prairies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corn (Zea mays L.) production is expanding in the prairie region of western Canada. The objectives of this study were to compare three new low heat unit corn hybrids to barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) for forage yield, nutrient profile, and total nutrient production. The study was conducted at 4 sites (Evansburg and Fairview, Alberta; Melfort and Scott, Saskatchewan) with different soil characteristics (Gray Luvisolic, Grey Wooded, Dark Brown, and Black soil zones) over three consecutive years (2012-2014). At each site, annually, 16 plots (2.4×7.2 m) were randomly assigned to one of four forage crops (corn:Monsanto DKC26-25, Hyland 2D093, Pioneer P7443R; barley: cv. AC Ranger) in a replicated (n = 4) trial. Number of cobs per plant was not different (p = 0.23) between corn hybrids averaging 1.22 ± 0.32/plant (mean ± sd). Forage yield among the corn hybrids was negligible (p > 0.05), but the corn hybrids exhibited 40% higher yield (p < 0.05; avg. 11.3 ± 3.6 t/ha on DM basis) compared to barley (avg. 6.7 ± 1.7 t/ha). Corn hybrids were lower (p < 0.05) in CP content [7.6 ± 1.4% versus (vs.) 12.4 ± 0.1%] than barley. No difference was observed between the 4 forage crops in TDN content (68.2 ± 2.8% DM).Study results suggestthat new cool-season corn hybrids can produce high quality forage to meet the nutrient requirements of grazing beef cows in mid- and late-stage pregnancy.New corn hybrids may be suitable alternatives for winter grazing strategies since forage harvest costs would be eliminated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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 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".