MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7028948947

Forage quality, animal performance and behaviour of bred beef heifers grazing stockpiled perennial and annual forages in the late fall/early winter in Manitoba

2022· dissertation· en· W7028948947 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrazingPerennial plantForageStockpileBeef cattleRandomized block design
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stockpile grazing is practiced to extend the grazing season of beef cows in western Canada. Little research has been conducted to identify plant species for successful stockpile grazing of bred beef heifers during the late fall/early winter. Objectives of this study were to compare the three stockpiled perennial and one annual forage stand based on: 1) forage quality, yield and plant height, 2) performance (weight gain, serum urea nitrogen, intake and methane output) of bred beef heifers, 3) animal activity (distance traveled and time spent at shelter/water). Four stockpiled forage treatments were grazed for two, 28-d periods near Brandon, Manitoba, Canada. Treatments included: 1) Courtney tall fescue (T)/Fleet meadow bromegrass (M)/Yellowhead alfalfa (A; TAM), 2) Killarney orchardgrass (OG)/Algonquin alfalfa (A; OGA), 3) Courtney tall fescue/Algonquin alfalfa/Oxley II cicer milkvetch (C; TAC) and 4) Fusion corn (COR) in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 4 heifers/replicate/treatment. Forage biomass yield in performance pastures of COR (6,342 kg DM ha-1) was 68%, 79% and 57% higher (P=0.011) than OGA, TAC, and TAM, respectively, which did not differ from each other. Crude protein was highest in TAC (10.29% and 10.90%) and COR was the lowest (6.87% and 6.76%). However, COR had the highest in TDN (72.14% and 71.90%) when compared to perennial forage treatments. All heifers gained weight in Period 1 (1.36 kg d-1) suggesting that all treatments could be successfully stockpile grazed in the late fall. When temperature fell to <-18°C Period 2 (-2 kg d-1), all heifers lost weight and those grazing perennial pastures spent more time (30-54% of the day) near windbreak shelters. Heifers grazing COR spent 7% of the day near shelter, suggesting COR provided adequate shelter. TAC was identified as the superior perennial forage treatment for stockpile grazing, based on higher CP and lower NDF compared to OGA and TAM, as well as improved ADG compared to OGA and numerically higher ADG compared to TAM, Although COR had increased yield and TDN with lower CP compared to TAC, ADG was comparable between the two treatments. Nonetheless, significant weight loss in Period 2 indicated that all treatments required supplementation.

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)0.000
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 score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics→French-language works237,207→