MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214844234 · doi:10.1071/cp21570

Sward structure and forage intake rate of elephant grass cv. Napier subjected to strategies of intermittent stocking management

2022· article· en· W4214844234 on OpenAlex
Eliana Vera Geremia, Adenilson José Paiva, Lilian Elgalise Techio Pereira, M. B. Chiavegato, Sila Carneiro da Silva

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop and Pasture Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsCargill (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrazingForageBiologyAgronomyPennisetum purpureumPastureStockingAnimal scienceDry matter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Grazing management strategies affect sward structure, changing patterns of foraging and intake, and consequently animal performance. Aims The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between sward structure and forage intake rate by cattle grazing elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach) cv. Napier subjected to strategies of rotational stocking management. Methods The experiment was conducted in Piracicaba, SP, Brazil, from January 2011 to April 2012. Treatments corresponded to all combinations between two post-grazing conditions (post-grazing heights of 35 and 45 cm) and two pre-grazing conditions (95% and maximum canopy light interception during regrowth; LI). The response variables evaluated at both pre- and post-grazing conditions were: (1) vertical distribution of morphological components; (2) bite rate; (3) bite mass; (4) intake rate; and (5) forage nutritive value (morphological and chemical composition of oesophageal extrusa samples). Key results Bite mass was smaller and bite rate was greater for LI95% swards at pre- and post-grazing, resulting in greater rate of forage intake. The post-grazing height targets affected the morphological and the chemical composition of the forage consumed. Conclusions In general, pastures managed with targets LI95% (pre-grazing) and 45 cm (post-grazing height) resulted in greater leaf percentage and nutritive value of the consumed forage. Implications Adequate grazing management strategies allow for high residual leaf area in pastures, ensuring rapid recovery after grazing. For grazing elephant grass cv. Napier, this corresponded to the combination between the LI95% pre-grazing target and the 45 cm post-grazing height.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it