CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAgricultural Engineering and MechanizationCrop Yield and Soil Fertility

Comparing three different methods for assessing corn silage density

Open access
Norell, Richard, Hines, Steve, Chahine, Mireille, Fife, Tianna, Marti, Mario, Parkinson, Stuart·2013·Journal of Extension
DOI 10.34068/joe.51.05.34
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Silage density is negatively correlated with dry matter losses in storage and has been used as an Extension evaluation tool to assess ensiling management practices on farms. We compared three methods for estimating silage density on 18 farms. Core sampling is the standard method, while the calculator and feed-out methods are new alternative methods. Core sampling results were highly correlated with the calculator method but not with the feed-out method. Core sampling and the calculator method are recommended tools for estimating storage dry matter losses and evaluating alternative ensiling management practices by Extension faculty, producers, and other users.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.34068/joe.51.05.34

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Norell et al. (2013) concluded that core sampling is recommended for directly assessing silage density, and the calculator method is recommended for estimating average density and for evaluating alternative management strategies during the silo filling and packing process; the feedout method performed poorly and is not recommended unless the storage structure has uniform silage face and easy-to-me

    “Their conclusion was, 'Core sampling is recommended for directly assessing silage density, and the calculator method is recommended for estimating average density and for evaluating alternative management strategies during the silo filling and packing process. The feedout method performed poorly and is not recommended unless the storage structure has uniform silage face and easy-to-measure”

    From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Norell et al., 2013

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Oelberg, T., Harms, C, Ohman, D., Hinen, J., & Defrain, J.(2006). Survey shows more packing of bunkers and piles needed. Proceedings of High Plains Dairy Conference , Albuquerque, NM. Pages 47-53. Retrieved from: http://www.highplainsdairy.org/2006/Hinen.pdf
  2. Ruppel, K. A. (1992). Effect of bunker silo management on hay crop nutrient preservation. M.S. Thesis . Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
  3. Ruppel, K. A. (1997). Economics of silage management practices: What can I do to improve the bottom line of my ensiling business? Silage: Field to Feedbunk (NRAES-99). Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, NY.Pages 125-136.
  4. SAS Institute. (2010). SAS/STAT User's Guide: Statistics, Version 9 . SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC. October 2013 Comparing Three Different Methods for Assessing Corn Silage Density JOE 51(5) ©2013 Extension Journal Inc.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Norell, R., Hines, S., Chahine, M., Fife, T., Marti, M., & Parkinson, S.
Affiliations
University of Idaho (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Extension
Publisher
Clemson University
Published
2013-10-01
Volume
51
Issue
5
ISSN
  • 0022-0140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1077-5315
DOI
10.34068/joe.51.05.34
OpenAlex
W3197341763
Cited by
4
References
3
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Journal of Extension (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • TigerPrints (Clemson University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Crop Yield and Soil Fertility
Keywords
corn silage, silage density, core drilling, dry matter loss, silage storage

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review