MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402542015 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.220

224 Yield and nutritive values of a polycrop and annual cereal monoculture used in winter swath grazing

2024· article· en· W4402542015 on OpenAlexaff
Somtochukwu N Obiora, H.A. Lardner, Janet Nowosad, Carien Vandenberg, Kathy Larson, Breeanna Kelln, Obioha N Durunna

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsLakeland CollegeUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonocultureGrazingAgronomyYield (engineering)Winter wheatBiologyEnvironmental sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This 3-yr study evaluated a comparative biomass yield and nutritive values of 2 forage systems: 1) a cereal monoculture (CDC-SO1 oats) and 2) a polycrops (PC) consisting of oat, brassicas (turnip and rape) and forage pea (4010) harvested at the hard dough (HD) stage for winter swath grazing purpose. A 12-ha field was divided into six, 2-ha paddocks, where each paddock was randomly assigned to 1 of 2 replicated (n = 3) forage systems. Forages were seeded in June and sampled for biomass yield and nutritive value at the soft dough (SD) and HD stages of oats. The seeding rate of oat monoculture (OM) was 157 kg/ha, while the PC was 45 kg/ha (oat), 11 kg/ha (forage pea) and 6 kg/ha (brassica). Forage samples were collected from a 0.6 m2 area at 24 pre-selected GPS points (4 per paddock), weighed and then oven-dried to a constant weight to determine DM yield. Data were analyzed using the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS and included treatment effects and treatments × stage interactions. Year was treated as a random effect due to climatic variations across years. For OM, there was a significant difference (P = 0.03) in biomass yield between SD (7,762.7 ± 1,217.9 kg/ha) and HD (8,902.8 ± 1,217.9 kg/ha) stages, while PC biomass yield did not differ (P = 0.94) between SD (5,922.4 ± 1,217.9 kg/ha) and HD (6,163.1±1,217.9 kg/ha) stages. The biomass yields between the two forage systems were different (P < 0.05) at the SD and HD stages. Crude protein (CP) concentration did not differ (P > 0.05) between the OM and PC at SD (10.4 vs 10.3%) and HD (8.9 vs 9.6%) stages. At the SD stage, significant differences (P < 0.05) between OM and the PC were observed for neutral detergent fiber (NDF, 50.9 vs 44.1%), calcium (0.2 vs 0.5%), phosphorus (0.2 vs 0.3%), and RFV-relative feed value (120.3 vs 142.2). Similarly, the starch (20.9 vs 16.5%), calcium (0.2 vs 0.5%), and phosphorus (0.2 vs 0.3%) values for OM and PC, respectively, also differed (P < 0.05) at the HD stage. Differences (P < 0.05) were observed between the SD and HD stages of OM for acid detergent fiber (ADF, 30.1 vs 27.0%), total digestible nutrient (TDN, 65.4 vs 67.9%), and starch (14.9 vs 20.9%) content, respectively. Study results suggest that swathing OM at the HD stage would be beneficial in terms of greater biomass yield without compromising quality, while PC can be harvested at either SD or HD stages based on the annual cereal component. Also, the lack of significant difference in the RFV, CP and TDN values between the PC and OM at the HD stage suggests that PC could be a viable alternative forage system for winter swath grazing.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207