MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414831391 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf300.148

84 Intercropping corn with annual forages for potential fall/winter grazing of beef cattle across the Canadian prairies

2025· article· en· W4414831391 on OpenAlexaffabout
Talyia Tober, Yvonne Lawley, Kim Ominski, E. J. McGeough

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntercroppingForageMonocultureGrazingBeef cattleLolium multiflorumRandomized block design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this study was to determine the optimal annual forage species to intercrop with corn for potential fall/winter grazing of beef cattle across the Canadian prairies. Corn is a high energy and yielding crop for grazing beef cattle, however, low CP concentration limits it’s potential value for growing cattle with high nutrient demands. This experiment was a randomized complete block design with 5 treatments and 4 replicates per treatment. Treatments included corn on 152 cm row spacing (44,460 plants/ha) with 1 of 4 annual forage species individually planted between corn rows. The forages were: Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum L.), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa R.), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.), and forage radish (Raphanus sativuts L.). A Control treatment of monoculture corn planted on 76 cm spacing (88,920 plants/ha) was included. Corn was seeded in mid-late May, with the intercropped forages planted when corn reached the V4 stage of growth. The experiment was conducted at 8 sites across Alberta (Lethbridge, Manning, Olds), Saskatchewan (Redvers), and Manitoba (Carman, Glenlea, Melita, Roblin) in 2022 and 2023. Biomass samples of corn and intercrop were obtained in late September and early November for determination of DM yield and chemical composition (CP, nitrates and TDN) and to examine difference in the treatments over the late fall/early winter period. Data were analysed using the Proc Mixed procedure in SAS 9.4 with treatment, location, year and sampling period included as fixed effects, and replicate as a random effect. The biomass yield of the Control and the combined corn plus intercropped forage treatments ranged from 4,431 – 24,873 kg DM/ha, with the Control higher due to doubled seeding rate. Overall, the combined yield for corn plus intercropped forages was 75% of the Control yield. The CP concentration for intercropped forages ranged from 8.42 - 35.88 % DM. On average, crimson clover was the lowest and forage radish the highest. Combined CP yield across all 5 treatments ranged from 410 – 1,500 kg DM/ha, with corn and intercropped forages producing equivalent compared to Control, overall. Intercropped forage nitrate ranged from 0.03 - 10.08 % DM, with hairy vetch having the lowest mean concentration (0.17 % DM). All intercropped forages had lower nitrate concentrations in early November compared to late September. The TDN for the intercropped forages ranged from 37.75 % DM (crimson clover) to 82.86 % DM (forage radish). Overall, radish had the highest CP and TDN. In summary, intercropping corn with forages showed potential to increase the CP concentration on 152 cm corn row spacing when compared to the Control. However, radish also had the highest nitrates which should be considered to avoid potential toxicity issues when 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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.277
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207