Forage Production and Economic Performance of Pasture Rejuvenation Methods in Northern Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Producing high quality forage and maintaining productive pastures is a major challenge that beef producers encounter, as rejuvenation is a complex and costly challenge. This is part of a series of papers looking at potential options and methods of rejuvenation to improve the productivity of older forage stands in northern Alberta. The methods of rejuvenation investigated were sub-soiling, break & re-seeding, a combination of manure application plus subsoiling, high stock density grazing, bale grazing, pasture rest, as well as direct seeding in spring and fall. In this series, forage dry matter (DM) yield, forage nutritive value and economic performance are presented and discussed. The top 5 forage DM yielders were bale grazing, manure + subsoil in fall, break & re-seeding, high stock density grazing and fertilizer application in that order. In both years, bale grazing consistently produced higher forage DM yield than other methods including control, with bale grazing giving up to 100% higher yield at site-1 and 219% at site- 2 for the 2-year total forage DM. Most forage nutritive value parameters measured were similar for the rejuvenation methods investigated. A simplified economic analysis done in this study showed that the direct input cost of rejuvenation an old forage stand was higher with the break & re-seeding method than other methods. However, for bale grazing, when the cost of hay bales used was factored in, then the cost of bale grazing far exceeded those of other methods including break & re-seeding. The implications of the results obtained in this study in relation to beef cattle production system are highlighted.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".