Abstract
The effects of levels of application of potassium (K) fertilizer, and its interactions with both nitrogen (N) fertilizer and the growth interval between fertilizer application and harvesting on ryegrass herbage yield and chemical composition, and the fermentation, predicted feeding value, effluent production and dry‐matter (DM) recovery of silage were evaluated in a randomized block design experiment. Twenty plots in each of four replicate blocks received either 0, 60, 120, 180 or 240 kg K ha −1 , each at either 120 or 168 kg N ha −1 . Herbage from the plots was harvested on either 24 May or 8 June and ensiled (6 kg) unwilted, without additive treatment, in laboratory silos. Immediately after harvesting, all plots received 95 kg N ha −1 and were harvested again after a 49‐day regrowth interval. From the primary growth, herbage DM yields were 6·31, 6·57, 6·74, 6·93 and 6·93 (s.e. 0·091) t ha −1 , herbage K concentrations were 15·5, 16·2, 19·1, 22·4 and 26·1 (s.e. 1·06) g kg −1 DM and herbage ash concentrations were 57, 63, 71, 73 and 76 (s.e. 0·9) g kg −1 DM, and for the primary regrowth herbage DM yields were 2·56, 2·73, 2·83, 2·94 and 2·99 (s.e. 0·056) t ha −1 for the 0, 60, 120, 180 and 240 g K ha −1 treatments respectively. Otherwise, the level of K fertilizer did not alter the chemical composition of the herbage at ensiling. After a 120‐day fermentation period the silos were opened and sampled. The level of K fertilization had little effect on silage fermentation and had no effect on estimated intake potential, in vitro DM digestibility (DMD), DM recovery or effluent production. Increasing N fertilizer application increased silage buffering capacity ( P < 0·05) and the concentrations of crude protein ( P < 0·001), ammonia N ( P < 0·01) and effluent volume ( P < 0·01), and decreased ethanol concentration ( P < 0·05) and intake potential ( P < 0·05). Except for the concentrations of lactate and butyrate, delaying the harvesting date deleteriously changed the chemical composition ( P < 0·001) and decreased intake potential ( P < 0·001) and DMD ( P < 0·001) of the silages. It is concluded that, other than for K and ash concentration, increasing the level of K fertilizer application did not alter the chemical composition of herbage from the primary growth or the resultant silage. Also, the level of K fertilizer application did not affect predicted feeding value, DM recovery or effluent production. Herbage yield increased linearly with increased fertilizer K application. Except for acetate and ethanol concentrations, there were no level of K fertilizer application by level of N fertilizer application interactions or level of K fertilizer application by harvest date interactions on silage fermentation or predicted feeding value. Increasing N fertilizer application from 120 to 168 kg ha −1 had a more deleterious effect on silage composition and feeding value than increasing K fertilizer application from 0 to 240 kg ha −1 . Delaying harvesting was the most important factor affecting herbage yield and composition, and silage composition and had the most deleterious effect on silage feeding value.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 14
Claim · model-written summary
Primary ryegrass herbage dry matter yield increased across K fertilizer levels.
- Treatment
- 0, 60, 120, 180 or 240 kg K ha −1e1
- Outcome
- herbage DM yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 6·31, 6·57, 6·74, 6·93 and 6·93 (s.e. 0·091) t ha −1e0
LoliumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“herbage DM yields were 6·31, 6·57, 6·74, 6·93 and 6·93 (s.e. 0·091) t ha −1”
e1“0, 60, 120, 180 or 240 kg K ha −1”
e2“ryegrass herbage yield”
e3“Herbage yield increased linearly with increased fertilizer K application.”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbage K concentration rose across the K fertilizer series.
- Treatment
- 0, 60, 120, 180 or 240 kg K ha −1e1
- Outcome
- herbage K concentrationse0
- Value
- 15·5, 16·2, 19·1, 22·4 and 26·1 (s.e. 1·06) g kg −1 DMe0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“herbage K concentrations were 15·5, 16·2, 19·1, 22·4 and 26·1 (s.e. 1·06) g kg −1 DM”
e1“0, 60, 120, 180 or 240 kg K ha −1”
e2“ryegrass herbage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbage ash concentration rose across the K fertilizer series.
- Treatment
- 0, 60, 120, 180 or 240 kg K ha −1e1
- Outcome
- herbage ash concentrationse0
- Value
- 57, 63, 71, 73 and 76 (s.e. 0·9) g kg −1 DMe0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“herbage ash concentrations were 57, 63, 71, 73 and 76 (s.e. 0·9) g kg −1 DM”
e1“0, 60, 120, 180 or 240 kg K ha −1”
e2“ryegrass herbage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Regrowth herbage dry matter yield increased across K levels.
- Treatment
- 0, 60, 120, 180 and 240 g K ha −1e1
- Outcome
- primary regrowth herbage DM yieldse0
- Value
- 2·56, 2·73, 2·83, 2·94 and 2·99 (s.e. 0·056) t ha −1e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“primary regrowth herbage DM yields were 2·56, 2·73, 2·83, 2·94 and 2·99 (s.e. 0·056) t ha −1”
e1“0, 60, 120, 180 and 240 g K ha −1 treatments respectively”
e2“ryegrass herbage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
K fertilizer otherwise did not alter herbage composition at ensiling.
- Treatment
- level of K fertilizere0
- Outcome
- chemical composition of the herbage at ensilinge0
- Direction
- did not altere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Otherwise, the level of K fertilizer did not alter the chemical composition of the herbage at ensiling.”
e1“ryegrass herbage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
K level had little effect on silage fermentation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The level of K fertilization had little effect on silage fermentation”
e1“ryegrass herbage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
K level did not affect silage intake potential, digestibility, recovery or effluent.
- Treatment
- level of K fertilizatione1
- Outcome
- estimated intake potential, in vitro DM digestibility (DMD), DM recovery or effluent productione0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“had no effect on estimated intake potential, in vitro DM digestibility (DMD), DM recovery or effluent production.”
e1“The level of K fertilization”
e2“ryegrass herbage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing N raised silage buffering capacity, crude protein, ammonia N and effluent volume.
- Treatment
- Increasing N fertilizer applicatione0
- Outcome
- silage buffering capacitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing N fertilizer application increased silage buffering capacity ( P < 0·05) and the concentrations of crude protein ( P < 0·001), ammonia N ( P < 0·01) and effluent volume ( P < 0·01)”
e1“ryegrass herbage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing N lowered silage ethanol concentration and intake potential.
- Treatment
- Increasing N fertilizer applicatione1
- Outcome
- ethanol concentration ( P < 0·05) and intake potentiale0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreased ethanol concentration ( P < 0·05) and intake potential ( P < 0·05).”
e1“Increasing N fertilizer application increased silage buffering capacity”
e2“ryegrass herbage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Later harvest deleteriously changed silage chemical composition except lactate and butyrate.
- Treatment
- delaying the harvesting datee0
- Outcome
- chemical compositione0
- Direction
- deleteriously changede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Except for the concentrations of lactate and butyrate, delaying the harvesting date deleteriously changed the chemical composition ( P < 0·001)”
e1“ryegrass herbage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Later harvest decreased silage intake potential and digestibility.
- Treatment
- delaying the harvesting datee1
- Outcome
- intake potential ( P < 0·001) and DMDe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreased intake potential ( P < 0·001) and DMD ( P < 0·001) of the silages.”
e1“delaying the harvesting date”
e2“ryegrass herbage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
K and N levels and K and harvest date generally lacked interactions for silage fermentation or predicted feeding value, except acetate and ethanol.
- Outcome
- interactions on silage fermentation or predicted feeding valuee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Except for acetate and ethanol concentrations, there were no level of K fertilizer application by level of N fertilizer application interactions or level of K fertilizer application by harvest date interactions on silage fermentation or predicted feeding value.”
e1“ryegrass herbage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing N had a more deleterious effect on silage composition and feeding value than increasing K.
- Outcome
- silage composition and feeding valuee0
- Comparator
- increasing K fertilizer application from 0 to 240 kg ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing N fertilizer application from 120 to 168 kg ha −1 had a more deleterious effect on silage composition and feeding value than increasing K fertilizer application from 0 to 240 kg ha −1 .”
e1“ryegrass herbage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Delayed harvest had the most deleterious effect on silage feeding value.
- Outcome
- silage feeding valuee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Delaying harvesting was the most important factor affecting herbage yield and composition, and silage composition and had the most deleterious effect on silage feeding value.”
e1“ryegrass herbage yield”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: general · LoliumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
fertilization · molecular: metabolites · LoliumPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →fertilization · growth · LoliumPositive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 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.