Paper · 1981 · Grass and Forage Science

Cattle slurry as a source of nutrients for red clover: herbage production and clover contribution

H. I. GRACEY

5
claims
5
verbatim quotes
7
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract An established sward of red clover cv. Hungaropoly sown pure received approx. 30 kg P ha ‐1 and 200 kg K ha ‐1 each year for 3 successive years. The P and K were applied either as cattle slurry, inorganic fertilizer or combinations of these. Treatments were applied either in spring or after the first harvest. There were a total of six treatments and these were harvested three times each year. The average yields of total herbage DM over all the treatments in the first, second and third years were 15·2, 14·2 and 14·2 t ha ‐1 respectively and the various treatments had no significant effect on the overall yields. Treatments had a significnt effect on red clover DM yields and percentage red clover in one harvest in each of the first 2 years and all three in the third year. Yields of red clover were lower and grass higher in treatments receiving cattle slurry only. On this treatment there was a total yield of 23·2 t ha ‐1 red clover DM in the 3 years compared with 30·2 t ha ‐1 on the inorganic fertilizer treatments. However, by applying P and K fertilizer in the spring, followed by cattle slurry after the first harvest, it was possible to maintain a high proportion of red clover in the sward and to produce yields of red clover DM similar to those on the inorganic fertilizer treatments.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizer treatments did not significantly affect overall herbage yields.

Treatment
various treatmentse0
Outcome
overall yieldse0
Direction
no significant effecte0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the various treatments had no significant effect on the overall yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 555–625 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatments significantly affected red clover dry matter yield and proportion.

Taxon
red cloverTrifolium pratensee0
Treatment
Treatmentse0
Outcome
red clover DM yields and percentage red clovere0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Trifolium pratense
Trifolium pratense · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Treatments had a significnt effect on red clover DM yields and percentage red clover”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 627–711 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cattle slurry alone lowered red clover yield relative to inorganic fertilizer.

Taxon
red cloverTrifolium pratensee0
Treatment
cattle slurry onlye0
Outcome
Yields of red clovere0
Direction
lowere0
Value
23·2 t ha ‐1e0
Qualifier
30·2 t ha ‐1e0
Comparator
inorganic fertilizer treatmentse0

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

Trifolium pratense
Trifolium pratense · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Yields of red clover were lower and grass higher in treatments receiving cattle slurry only. On this treatment there was a total yield of 23·2 t ha ‐1 red clover DM in the 3 years compared with 30·2 t ha ‐1 on the inorganic fertilizer treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 789–1034 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grass yield was higher under cattle slurry alone.

Taxon
grasse0
Treatment
cattle slurry onlye0
Outcome
grasse0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Yields of red clover were lower and grass higher in treatments receiving cattle slurry only”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 789–880 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spring mineral fertilizer followed by slurry maintained a high clover proportion and yields similar to inorganic fertilizer.

Taxon
red cloverTrifolium pratensee0
Treatment
P and K fertilizer in the spring, followed by cattle slurry after the first harveste0
Outcome
yields of red clover DMe0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
inorganic fertilizer treatmentse0

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

Trifolium pratense
Trifolium pratense · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“by applying P and K fertilizer in the spring, followed by cattle slurry after the first harvest, it was possible to maintain a high proportion of red clover in the sward and to produce yields of red clover DM similar to those on the inorganic fertilizer treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1045–1309 · show in text ↑

fertilization · yield · Trifolium pratense (red clover)Results differ

27 papers: 17 positive, 10 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 papers →

phosphorus · yield · Trifolium pratense (red clover)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

potassium · yield · Trifolium pratense (red clover)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.