MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402541421 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.165

507 Effects of simple and complex polycrop mixtures on forage yield and quality, beef cow performance, and methane emissions

2024· article· en· W4402541421 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shelby M Robinson, Gabriel O Ribeiro, Kathy Larson, H.A. Lardner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForageMethaneYield (engineering)Simple (philosophy)Quality (philosophy)Environmental scienceMathematicsAgronomyBiologyEcologyThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Polycrop mixtures are of increasing interest to western Canadian beef producers as alternative forages for grazing as they may promote plant biodiversity and nutritive value. This 2-yr study evaluated the effects of swath grazing either simple or complex polycrop mixtures on forage yield and quality, beef cow performance, and methane emissions. Forage treatments included 1) CDC Haymaker oat (Avena sativa; Control); 2) CDC Haymaker oat, Goliath brassica (Brassica napus), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), CDC Jasper pea (Pisum sativum; Simple); and 3) CDC Haymaker oat, Goliath brassica, hairy vetch, CDC Jasper pea, CDC Maverick barley (Hordeum vulgare), Red proso millet (Panicum miliaceum), Teff grass (Eragrostis tef) and Choice chicory (Cichorium intybus; Complex). Dry pregnant beef cows [n = 90; body weight (BW) = 607.2 ± 32.3 kg; body condition score (BCS) = 2.9 ± 0.06] blocked by BW were randomly allocated to 1 of 9 paddocks (10 cows/paddock). Paddocks were randomly assigned 1 of 3 replicated (n = 3) systems. Cow BCS was measured at start (SOT) and end (EOT) of trial. Cow BW was recorded on 2 consecutive days at the SOT and EOT, and every 21 d during trial. Cows grazed for an average of 52 d from October to December (Control 51 ± 9.07 d; Simple 54 ± 9.20 d; Complex 53 ± 12.41 d). Data were analyzed as a completely randomized block design using the mixed model of SAS (9.4). Year and paddock were included as a random effect. Forage dry matter yield (DMY) was similar (P = 0.44) among Control (4,369 kg/ha), Simple (4,053 kg/ha), and Complex (4,245 kg/ha) treatments. Start of trial forage crude protein (CP) and total digestible nutrients (TDN) did not differ (P = 0.18 and P = 0.14) among treatments (Control 13.3% CP and 74.4% TDN; Simple 14.76% CP and 71.51% TDN; Complex 14.95% CP and 74.46% TDN). End of trial forage CP and TDN did not differ (P = 0.57 and P = 0.20) among treatments (Control 13.9% CP and 69.5% TDN; Simple 13.9% CP and 69.9% TDN; Complex 13.2% CP and 72.4% TDN). Cow BCS and average daily gain did not differ among forage treatments (P = 0.60 and P = 0.45, respectively). Cow dry matter intake (DMI) was similar (P = 0.19) among treatments (Control 11.13 kg/d; Simple 9.74 kg/d; Complex 9.96 kg/d). Methane emissions were greatest (P = 0.04) for cows grazing Simple (28.7 CH4 g/kg DMI) and Complex treatments (28.2 CH4 g/kg DMI) compared with monoculture oat treatment (22.6 CH4 g/kg DMI). Study results suggest that simple or complex polycrop mixtures may be used as forage alternatives to a monoculture oat grazing system as they produce adequate biomass and had nutritive value suitable for gestating 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 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)0.001
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 score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207