MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401595141 · doi:10.3390/agriculture14081363

Effects of Harvest Date and Ensiling Additives on the Optimized Ensiling of Silphium Perfoliatum to Prevent Faulty Fermentation

2024· article· en· W4401595141 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marian Baumgart, Benedikt Hülsemann, Gregor Sailer, Hans Oechsner, Joachim Müller

Bibliographic record

VenueAgriculture · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Rural Affairs
KeywordsFermentationBiologyAgronomyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silphium perfoliatum, an energy crop with a high fiber content but low concentrations of fermentable carbohydrates, presents challenges for complete fermentation in biogas production. To overcome this, a bioeconomic approach proposes the use of the fibers for paper and board production, which requires high-quality silage with minimal butyric acid, which affects the marketability of the fibers. This study aims to optimize the silaging process of Silphium perfoliatum by investigating the effects of harvest date, bacterial cultures and additives on fermentation results. Laboratory experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of three harvest dates on fermentation acid composition, with a focus on increasing lactic acid production to inhibit butyric acid formation. Results indicate that an early harvest date (early September) is critical for achieving stable fermentation and minimizing ensiling losses. The addition of sugar-rich additives, such as syrup, was found to be essential, especially for later harvest dates. Despite these interventions, a late harvest (early November) consistently resulted in suboptimal fermentation. The results suggest that optimizing harvest timing and incorporating appropriate additives are key strategies for producing high quality silage and ensuring the suitability of Silphium perfoliatum fibers for industrial applications.

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultureSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207