Factors affecting nutrient losses in hay production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The primary objective of haymaking is to dry forage adequately to inhibit the growth of undesirable microbes and halt residual plant enzymatic activity that causes nutrient losses. During the field and storage phases of haymaking, the environment, management practices, and other factors influence the extent of dry matter losses. This review discusses these factors and the strategies that have been developed to mitigate nutrient losses. A major emphasis was placed on hay microbiome dynamics, as it has been scarcely studied despite its importance on nutrient losses during storage and harvest, especially under humid conditions. The effects of cutting height, mower type, and swath manipulation on soil contamination were discussed. Also, the impact of environmental conditions and swath manipulation on wilting time was analysed for humid and arid conditions. Special attention was given to design improvements in harvesting equipment to reduce wilting time and field losses. Furthermore, we assessed the nutrient losses during storage caused by microbial and residual plant enzymatic activity resulting from excessive moisture at baling or re‐introduced moisture during storage. The spoilage extent during storage depends on bale moisture, size, density, shape, wrapping, forage type, and storage facilities. A Venn diagram analysis showed that each phase of haymaking process has a unique microbiome and that certain fungal and bacterial genera could be shared across more than one hay production phase. To take corrective actions, hay producers need to be aware of the increased susceptibility to nutrient losses associated with particular field and storage practices, environmental conditions, and forage types.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".