Abstract
Dairy producers frequently ask questions about the risks associated with applying dairy slurry to growing alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Our objectives were to determine the effects of applying dairy slurry on the subsequent nutritive value and fermentation characteristics of alfalfa balage. Dairy slurry was applied to 0.17-ha plots of alfalfa; applications were made to the second (HARV1) and third (HARV2) cuttings during June and July of 2012, respectively, at mean rates of 42,400 ± 5271 and 41,700 ± 2397 L/ha, respectively. Application strategies included (1) no slurry, (2) slurry applied directly to stubble immediately after the preceding harvest, (3) slurry applied after 1 wk of post-ensiled regrowth, or (4) slurry applied after 2 wk of regrowth. All harvested forage was packaged in large, rectangular bales that were ensiled as wrapped balage. Yields of DM harvested from HARV1 (2,477 kg/ha) and HARV2 (781 kg/ha) were not affected by slurry application treatment. By May 2013, all silages appeared to be well preserved, with no indication of undesirable odors characteristic of clostridial fermentations. Clostridium tyrobutyricum, which is known to negatively affect cheese production, was not detected in any forage on either a pre- or post-ensiled basis. On a pre-ensiled basis, counts for Clostridium cluster 1 were greater for slurry-applied plots than for those receiving no slurry, and this response was consistent for HARV1 (4.44 vs. 3.29 log10 genomic copies/g) and HARV2 (4.99 vs. 3.88 log10 genomic copies/g). Similar responses were observed on a post-ensiled basis; however, post-ensiled counts also were greater for HARV1 (5.51 vs. 5.17 log10 genomic copies/g) and HARV2 (5.84 vs. 5.28 log10 genomic copies/g) when slurry was applied to regrowth compared with stubble. For HARV2, counts also were greater following a 2-wk application delay compared with a 1-wk delay (6.23 vs. 5.45 log10 genomic copies/g). These results suggest that the risk of clostridial fermentations in alfalfa silages is greater following applications of slurry. Based on pre- and post-ensiled clostridial counts, applications of dairy slurry on stubble are preferred (and less risky) compared with delayed applications on growing alfalfa.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Slurry treatment did not significantly affect dry matter yield in HARV1, which was 2,477 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativat0 - Treatment
- slurry application treatmente0
- Outcome
- Yields of DM harvested from HARV1e0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Value
- 2,477 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields of DM harvested from HARV1 (2,477 kg/ha) and HARV2 (781 kg/ha) were not affected by slurry application treatment”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Slurry treatment did not affect dry matter yield in HARV2, which was 781 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- slurry application treatmente0
- Outcome
- HARV2e0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Value
- 781 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields of DM harvested from HARV1 (2,477 kg/ha) and HARV2 (781 kg/ha) were not affected by slurry application treatment”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
All alfalfa silages appeared well preserved without odors characteristic of clostridial fermentation by May 2013.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Outcome
- all silages appeared to be well preservede0
- Qualifier
- By May 2013e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“By May 2013, all silages appeared to be well preserved, with no indication of undesirable odors characteristic of clostridial fermentations”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Clostridium tyrobutyricum was undetected in forage before or after ensiling.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Interactor
- Clostridium tyrobutyricumClostridium tyrobutyricume0other
- Outcome
- was not detected in any foragee0
- Qualifier
- either a pre- or post-ensiled basise0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Clostridium tyrobutyricum, which is known to negatively affect cheese production, was not detected in any forage on either a pre- or post-ensiled basis”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-ensiled Clostridium cluster 1 counts in HARV1 were greater with slurry, 4.44 versus 3.29 log10 genomic copies/g.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- slurry-applied plotse0
- Outcome
- counts for Clostridium cluster 1e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 4.44 vs. 3.29 log10 genomic copies/ge0
- Qualifier
- HARV1e0
- Comparator
- those receiving no slurrye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“counts for Clostridium cluster 1 were greater for slurry-applied plots than for those receiving no slurry, and this response was consistent for HARV1 (4.44 vs. 3.29 log10 genomic copies/g) and HARV2 (4.99 vs. 3.88 log10 genomic copies/g)”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-ensiled Clostridium cluster 1 counts in HARV2 were greater with slurry, 4.99 versus 3.88 log10 genomic copies/g.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- slurry-applied plotse0
- Outcome
- counts for Clostridium cluster 1e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 4.99 vs. 3.88 log10 genomic copies/ge0
- Qualifier
- HARV2e0
- Comparator
- those receiving no slurrye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“counts for Clostridium cluster 1 were greater for slurry-applied plots than for those receiving no slurry, and this response was consistent for HARV1 (4.44 vs. 3.29 log10 genomic copies/g) and HARV2 (4.99 vs. 3.88 log10 genomic copies/g)”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Post-ensiled HARV1 clostridial counts were greater for slurry applied to regrowth than to stubble, 5.51 versus 5.17 log10 genomic copies/g.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- slurry was applied to regrowthe0
- Outcome
- post-ensiled countse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 5.51 vs. 5.17 log10 genomic copies/ge0
- Qualifier
- HARV1e0
- Comparator
- stubblee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“post-ensiled counts also were greater for HARV1 (5.51 vs. 5.17 log10 genomic copies/g) and HARV2 (5.84 vs. 5.28 log10 genomic copies/g) when slurry was applied to regrowth compared with stubble”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Post-ensiled HARV2 clostridial counts were greater for slurry applied to regrowth than to stubble, 5.84 versus 5.28 log10 genomic copies/g.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- slurry was applied to regrowthe0
- Outcome
- post-ensiled countse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 5.84 vs. 5.28 log10 genomic copies/ge0
- Qualifier
- HARV2e0
- Comparator
- stubblee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“post-ensiled counts also were greater for HARV1 (5.51 vs. 5.17 log10 genomic copies/g) and HARV2 (5.84 vs. 5.28 log10 genomic copies/g) when slurry was applied to regrowth compared with stubble”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
HARV2 clostridial counts were greater after a two-week slurry application delay than after one week, 6.23 versus 5.45 log10 genomic copies/g.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- 2-wk application delaye0
- Outcome
- countse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 6.23 vs. 5.45 log10 genomic copies/ge0
- Comparator
- 1-wk delaye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For HARV2, counts also were greater following a 2-wk application delay compared with a 1-wk delay (6.23 vs. 5.45 log10 genomic copies/g)”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors infer greater risk of clostridial fermentation after slurry application.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- applications of slurrye0
- Outcome
- risk of clostridial fermentationse0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the risk of clostridial fermentations in alfalfa silages is greater following applications of slurry”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors prefer slurry application to stubble over delayed application to growing alfalfa.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- applications of dairy slurry on stubblee0
- Outcome
- applications of dairy slurry on stubble are preferrede0
- Comparator
- delayed applications on growing alfalfae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applications of dairy slurry on stubble are preferred (and less risky) compared with delayed applications on growing alfalfa”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →fertilization · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 151 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 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.