Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Cutting time did not significantly change crude protein or detergent fiber and lignin contents.

A claim from Variation of digestibility and intake by sheep of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) hays cut at sunrise or sunset · 2011

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cutting time did not significantly change crude protein or detergent fiber and lignin contents.

Taxon
lucerneMedicago sativat0
Treatment
times of cuttinge0
Outcome
crude protein, neutral detergent fibre, acid detergent fibre or acid detergent lignine0
Direction
No significant differencese0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No significant differences between times of cutting were found for crude protein, neutral detergent fibre, acid detergent fibre or acid detergent lignin.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 450–603
t0

“lucerne”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–57

Title

Variation of digestibility and intake by sheep of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) hays cut at sunrise or sunset

D. ANDUEZA; I. DELGADO; F. MUÑOZ The Journal of Agricultural Science 2011. doi:10.1017/s0021859611000542

Other claims from this paper (13)

Record rev-cfbceff1f42e77af09542280648b1ba284a65c185630dbc5d8c7e926bc668ee5 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

pruning · quality: protein · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

22 papers: 11 positive, 11 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this claim · 11 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    A four-week cutting interval produced the largest digestible protein amount.

    Effect of Cutting Interval and Stage of Maturity on the Digestibility and Yield of Alfalfa2 · 1960

    Opposite direction

  2. positive
    Alfalfa dry matter and protein yields were highest with insecticide one week after cutting in 1982.

    Impact of Insecticide Applications at Various Alfalfa Growth Stages on Potato Leafhopper (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) Abundance and Crop Damage · 1985

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    Higher cutting height improved protein and digestibility in both schedules.

    Effect of Cutting Height and Stage of Development on Lucerne Quality in the Po Plain · 2006

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    Cutting alfalfa at the beginning of flowering (5 cuts per year) gave hay with higher crude protein content.

    10.5937/ratpov51-5571 = Effect of genotype and applied management on alfalfa yield and quality · 2014

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Sowing on 20 November with a 25-day cutting interval gave numerically higher crude protein content.

    Effect of date of sowing and cutting intervals on yield attribute, yield, quality and soil fertility of Lucerne [Medicago sativa L.] under North Gujarat agroclimatic conditions · 2017

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Maximum crude protein yield of alfalfa (6.98-7.31 t/ha) was obtained when mowing at the early flowering phase, exceeding the budding stage by 0.07-0.60 t/ha.

    The influence of fertilization systems on the productivity and quality of different varieties of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) · 2025 · compared with budding stage

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    Alfalfa crude protein at 15 cm exceeded that at 6 cm.

    FORAGE YIELD AND NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF ALFALFA IN RELATION TO CUTTING HEIGHT, STAGE OF MATURITY AND CLIMATIC CHANGES · 2025 · compared with cutting height of 6 cm

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    Cutting alfalfa at the bud period gave the highest crude protein content.

    The effect of seeding rates and cutting time on yield and quality of mixture pasture · 2009

    Opposite direction

13 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.