MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283764277 · doi:10.5539/sar.v11n3p1

Evaluation of Stockpiled Perennial Forage Compared to Grass-legume Hay for Chemical Composition and Rumen Degradation Kinetics

2022· article· en· W4283764277 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Dharmasuri Gamage Ruwini Kulathunga, Daalkhaijav Damiran, G.B. Penner, H.A. Lardner

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsHayForageRumenPerennial plantAnimal scienceLegumeAgronomyDry matterNeutral Detergent FiberBiologyChemistryFood scienceFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to determine the chemical composition and in situ degradability of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) of stockpiled perennial forage (SPF) or sun-cured hay (HAY) when collected at the start or end (October vs. December) of fall grazing. Selected 6, 4-ha paddocks consisting of meadow bromegrass and alfalfa, were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 replicated (n = 3) winter feeding systems (SPF and HAY). Sampling was done twice per year at the beginning (October) and end (December) from (a) stockpiled perennial forage (SPF) in field paddocks and from (b) harvested round bale hay (HAY) over 2 consecutive years. Selected 6, 4-ha paddocks consisting of meadow bromegrass and alfalfa, were randomly assigned two winter feeding systems (SPF (n=3) and HAY (n=3)). Sampling were done twice per year at the beginning (October) and end (December) from (a) SPF (b) HAY over 2 consecutive years. To evaluate in situ degradability, duplicate nylon bags from each experimental unit were incubated for 0, 3, 6, 10, 13, 25, 48, 72, and 96 h in five Hereford heifers fitted with rumen cannula. Relative to HAY, SPF had greater (p = 0.01) OM (906 vs. 916 g/kg DM) and NDF (653 vs. 631 g/kg DM) concentrations. Sampling date had no effect (p > 0.05) on CP, OM, and ADF in both forages, whereas the NDF was greater (p = 0.01) in forages sampled in December. The in situ soluble fraction (S) of DM was greater (p = 0.01) for SPF collected in October, HAY collected in October, and HAY collected in December s (156, 138, and 152 g/kg DM, respectively) relative to SPF collected in December (106 g/kg DM). The potentially degradable fraction (D) of CP was less (p < 0.05) for HAY December samples compared to SPF December and HAY October samples (257 vs. 522 and 523 g/kg CP, respectively). The SPF had a greater (p < 0.05) potentially degradable ADF (749 vs. 587 g/kg ADF) and potentially degradable NDF (770 vs. 591 g/kg NDF) compared to HAY. The effect of forage type and sampling date did not affect (p > 0.05) effective degradability of NDF. Regardless of the forage type the potentially degradable fraction of NDF decreased from October to December (SPF: 770 to 730 g/kg NDF) (HAY: 680 g/kg to 491 g/kg NDF). These findings suggest SPF grazing is a robust substitute to hay feeding systems for beef cows.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207