Paper · 2008 · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture

Yield and flour quality of spring wheat as affected by soil tillage and animal manure

Ingrid K Thomsen; Lene Pedersen; Johannes R Jørgensen

6
claims
9
verbatim quotes
11
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract BACKGROUND: Yield and quality of organic bread wheat may be improved by adjusting tillage and type of manure. We tested two different tillage strategies (rotovation plus ploughing or ploughing only) before sowing spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) on a coarse loamy sand. The tillage strategies were combined with four nitrogen (N) rates of animal manure supplied in either slurry or liquid manure. RESULTS: Rotovation before ploughing had only a negligible influence on soil inorganic N content in the spring and on wheat biomass development. Liquid manure gave a higher protein and gluten content than slurry, probably due to its higher proportion of inorganic N. At low N rates, gluten from wheat supplied with slurry was softer than from wheat given liquid manure and responded differently to baking tests than expected from their gluten and protein content. At higher N rates, loaf volume corresponded well with the gluten and protein content. CONCLUSION: Soil tillage intensity did not have a major influence on soil N mineralisation patterns and manure N availability. Except at low N rates, the response of wheat flour to different types of animal manure is mainly determined by the amount of inorganic N supplied. Copyright © 2008 Society of Chemical Industry

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rotovation before ploughing had negligible influence on soil inorganic N and wheat biomass.

Treatment
Rotovation before ploughinge0
Outcome
soil inorganic N content in the spring and on wheat biomass developmente0
Direction
negligible influencee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Rotovation before ploughing had only a negligible influence on soil inorganic N content in the spring and on wheat biomass development”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 419–553 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Liquid manure gave higher wheat protein content than slurry.

Treatment
Liquid manuree0
Outcome
proteine0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
slurrye0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Liquid manure gave a higher protein and gluten content than slurry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 555–621 · show in text ↑
e1

“spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 222–258 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Liquid manure gave higher wheat gluten content than slurry.

Treatment
Liquid manuree0
Outcome
gluten contente0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
slurrye0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Liquid manure gave a higher protein and gluten content than slurry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 555–621 · show in text ↑
e1

“spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 222–258 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At low N rates, gluten from slurry treated wheat was softer than with liquid manure.

Treatment
slurrye0
Outcome
glutene0
Direction
softere0
Qualifier
At low N ratese0
Comparator
liquid manuree0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At low N rates, gluten from wheat supplied with slurry was softer than from wheat given liquid manure”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 677–778 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At low N rates, slurry treated wheat responded unexpectedly in baking tests.

Treatment
slurrye0
Outcome
responded differently to baking testse0
Qualifier
At low N ratese0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At low N rates, gluten from wheat supplied with slurry was softer than from wheat given liquid manure and responded differently to baking tests than expected from their gluten and protein content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 677–872 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At higher N rates, loaf volume corresponded with gluten and protein content.

Outcome
loaf volumee0
Qualifier
At higher N ratese0
Comparator
gluten and protein contente0

Not reportedCompoundDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At higher N rates, loaf volume corresponded well with the gluten and protein content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 874–958 · show in text ↑
e1

“spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 222–258 · show in text ↑

tillage · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

267 papers: 208 positive, 59 negative or no effect

58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 208 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

263 papers more in this group

See all 267 papers →

fertilization · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

566 papers: 501 positive, 65 negative or no effect

500 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

562 papers more in this group

See all 566 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.