Effect of type of underlay film on fermentation profile, nutritional quality and estimated loss of organic matter in the outer layer of whole‐plant maize ensiled in large bunker silos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Losses of organic matter in the outer layers of bunker silos covered with conventional polyethylene (PE) plastic can be substantial due to oxygen transmission through the plastic top‐covering film during the post‐ensiling storage period. The effect of two silo covering materials, oxygen barrier (OB) film (45 μm thickness) and clear PE film (50 μm thickness), as underlays to a white‐on‐black PE plastic top cover (120 μm thickness), was assessed in the outer layer of whole‐plant maize silage stored in three large bunker silos in the People's Republic of China. Samples of the crop at harvest and of silage from the upper 45 cm layer at 5 months post‐ensiling, prior to removal of silage for feed‐out, were analysed for DM, fermentation profile and chemical composition. Loss of OM was estimated from concentrations of ash in the crop at harvest and in the silage. Differences between underlay films in silage fermentation profile were small. Silage protected with OB underlay film had higher mean concentration of starch (p < .008) and higher mean NDF digestibility (p < .003) than silage under PE underlay film. Concentrations of ash were lower (p < .001) for silage covered with OB film than for PE film in all three trials. Mean estimated losses of OM were 170 g/kg for OB underlay film and 232 g/kg for PE underlay film (p < .001), and whole‐silo estimated net economic benefits to OB underlay film ranged from 0.17 to 0.74 US $ per tonne fresh crop ensiled.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".