Comparison of Yield, Forage Quality and Persistence of 11 Grasses Grown with Irrigation in a Semi-arid Climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutritive quality of many grass species used for forage in the Northern Great Plains of Canada and the United States is not well documented, especially at different maturity stages. This study compared agronomic and forage quality characteristics of eleven grasses common to Saskatchewan. Botanical separation and quality analysis was undertaken at three growth stages. Meadow Brome (Bromus riparius), Russian Wildrye (Psathyrostachys juceus) and Altai Wildrye (Elymus angustus) were shown to have high leaf to stem ratios which corresponded with high protein levels. Separations showed persistence of Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arudinaceus), Creeping Foxtail (Alopecurus arundinaceus), Russian Wildrye, Smooth Brome (Bromus inermus), Tall Wheatgrass (Agropyron elongatum) and Altai Wildrye (Elymus angustus) to be greater than 65% of the sward botanical composition after four years of establishment. Digestibility of the grasses was analyzed using total tract and in vitro techniques. Tall Wheatgrass (Agropyron elongatum),(58.4%) and Intermediate Wheatgrass (Agropyron intermedium),(59.7%) were shown to have the highest apparent digestibility. In vitro digestibility of clipped samples was similar to digestibility values determined by total tract digestibility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".