Evaluation of Cicer Milkvetch and Alfalfa Cultivars for Nutritive Value, Anti-Quality Factors and Animal Preference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cicer milkvetch (CMV; Astragalus cicer L.) is an alternative non-bloat legume to managing alfalfa. A 2-yr study was conducted to compare three CMV cultivars (Oxley II, Oxley, and Veldt) to AC Grazeland alfalfa (ALF; check forage) for nutritive value and animal preference. Each yr, replicate samples (n = 4) of each forage type were harvested late summer and analyzed for nutrient profile. Oxley II had lower (p < 0.05) fiber content than AC Grazeland, while Oxley and Veldt were similar (p = 0.48) to AC Grazeland for neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF) and starch. In contrast, Oxley II had higher (p < 0.05) net energy for gain (NEg) than AC Grazeland, and Oxley and Veldt were similar (p > 0.05) to AC Grazeland for NEg. All three CMV varieties had similar levels of total digestible nutrients (TDN) (63.6 ± 0.6%; p > 0.05), but had higher (p = 0.01) energy content than AC Grazeland alfalfa (54.9 ± 1.4% TDN). Selenium (Se) concentrations were similar (p > 0.05) among CVM cultivars and less than 1 mg/kg DM, and no swainsonine or nitrotoxins were detected in the CMV cultivars. The Oxley II CMV tended (p = 0.06) to have a higher (139) relative feed value (RFV) compared to AC Grazeland (94), while Oxley and Veldt had moderate RFV values (128). Dry matter intake of Oxley II, Veldt, and Oxley CMV was 4, 18, and 28% greater than AC Grazeland, respectively. Based on the relative preference index (ratio of forage DMI to AC Grazeland alfalfa DMI), forage types are ranked as follows: AC Grazeland (1.0) < Veldt (1.2) < Oxley (1.4) < Oxley II (1.7). Study results suggest that CMV cultivars harvested late summer, maintained higher forage quality with greater preference compared to alfalfa.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".