Abstract
The effect of chemical drying agents (DA) in combination with surfactant (S) applied to first‐cutting alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) hay has been variable in reducing drying time. Furthermore, their effect on nutrient availability in rumen has not been ascertained. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of DA concentration and S addition, when applied at mowing, on drying rate, ruminal nutrient availability, and digestion rate of first‐cutting alfalfa hay. Treatments included: UC = untreated control; Lo‐DA/S = DA applied at 30 g L −1 with additional S; Lo‐DA = 30 g L −1 , no S; Hi‐DA/S = 60 g L −1 , with additional S; and Hi‐DA = 60 g L −1 , no S. The trial was conducted in the field, utilizing four replications of each treatment to evaluate drying rate. Two ruminally cannulated cows ( Bos indicus ) were used to measure the influence of DA on in situ dry matter (DM), nitrogen (N), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF) digestibility. All treated alfalfa had faster drying rates than UC. Drying agent concentration or S addition had no effect on drying rate. Drying agents did not influence relative proportions of soluble, ruminally digestible or indigestible DM. However, undigestible N, NDF, and ADF increased compared to UC. Rate of ruminal ADF digestion was decreased by DA application. Additional S increased the proportion of indigestible DM, N, and NDF regardless of DA concentration. Digestion rates for N increased for Lo‐DA/S and Hi‐DA compared to Lo‐DA and Hi‐DA/S. Digestion rates for NDF increased and ADF decreased by S addition, Hi‐DA treatments having higher NDF and ADF digestion rates than Lo‐DA treatments. Drying rate of alfalfa hay was increased by chemical treatment at mowing. However, chemical treatment had a variable effect on ruminal nutrient availability.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
All chemically treated alfalfa had faster drying rates than the untreated control.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativae1 - Treatment
- DA concentration and S additione2
- Outcome
- drying ratese1
- Direction
- fastere1
- Comparator
- UCe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All treated alfalfa had faster drying rates than UC”
e2“The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of DA concentration and S addition, when applied at mowing, on drying rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Drying agents did not influence the relative proportions of soluble, ruminally digestible or indigestible DM.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- Drying agentse3
- Outcome
- relative proportions of soluble, ruminally digestible or indigestible DMe3
- Direction
- did not influencee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All treated alfalfa had faster drying rates than UC”
e3“Drying agents did not influence relative proportions of soluble, ruminally digestible or indigestible DM”
Claim · model-written summary
Drying agents increased the undigestible N, NDF and ADF compared with the untreated control.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- Drying agentse3
- Outcome
- undigestible N, NDF, and ADFe4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Comparator
- UCe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All treated alfalfa had faster drying rates than UC”
e3“Drying agents did not influence relative proportions of soluble, ruminally digestible or indigestible DM”
e4“However, undigestible N, NDF, and ADF increased compared to UC”
Claim · model-written summary
Drying agent application decreased the rate of ruminal ADF digestion.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- DA applicatione5
- Outcome
- Rate of ruminal ADF digestione5
- Direction
- decreasede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All treated alfalfa had faster drying rates than UC”
e5“Rate of ruminal ADF digestion was decreased by DA application”
Claim · model-written summary
Additional S increased the proportion of indigestible DM, N and NDF regardless of DA concentration.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- Additional Se6
- Outcome
- the proportion of indigestible DM, N, and NDFe6
- Direction
- increasede6
- Qualifier
- regardless of DA concentratione6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All treated alfalfa had faster drying rates than UC”
e6“Additional S increased the proportion of indigestible DM, N, and NDF regardless of DA concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
Digestion rate for N increased for Lo‐DA/S and Hi‐DA compared with Lo‐DA and Hi‐DA/S.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- Lo‐DA/S and Hi‐DAe7
- Outcome
- Digestion rates for Ne7
- Direction
- increasede7
- Comparator
- Lo‐DA and Hi‐DA/Se7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All treated alfalfa had faster drying rates than UC”
e7“Digestion rates for N increased for Lo‐DA/S and Hi‐DA compared to Lo‐DA and Hi‐DA/S”
Claim · model-written summary
S addition increased the digestion rate of NDF.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- S additione2
- Outcome
- Digestion rates for NDFe2
- Direction
- increasede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All treated alfalfa had faster drying rates than UC”
e2“Digestion rates for NDF increased and ADF decreased by S addition”
Claim · model-written summary
S addition decreased the digestion rate of ADF.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- S additione2
- Outcome
- ADFe2
- Direction
- decreasede2
- Qualifier
- Digestion ratese2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All treated alfalfa had faster drying rates than UC”
e2“Digestion rates for NDF increased and ADF decreased by S addition”
Claim · model-written summary
Hi‐DA treatments had higher NDF and ADF digestion rates than Lo‐DA treatments.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- Hi‐DA treatmentse2
- Outcome
- NDF and ADF digestion ratese2
- Direction
- highere2
- Comparator
- Lo‐DA treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All treated alfalfa had faster drying rates than UC”
e2“Hi‐DA treatments having higher NDF and ADF digestion rates than Lo‐DA treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemical treatment had a variable effect on ruminal nutrient availability.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- chemical treatmente2
- Outcome
- ruminal nutrient availabilitye2
- Direction
- variable effecte2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All treated alfalfa had faster drying rates than UC”
e2“chemical treatment had a variable effect on ruminal nutrient availability”
The same questions in other papers
processing · quality: grain · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →processing · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 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.