Abstract
ABSTRACT Maize and sorghum are the main raw materials in the production of silage for animal feed, with mineral fertilization being worthy of note when the goal is to increase gains in the amount and quality of the forage. This study aimed at evaluating the contribution of N, P or K doses to the dry matter and crude protein yield in maize and sorghum grown for silage. The experiments were carried out in a randomized block design, with four replications, during five successive crops of maize (three summer seasons) and sorghum (two off-season). Five doses of N (0 kg ha-1, 50 kg ha-1, 100 kg ha-1, 150 kg ha-1 and 200 kg ha-1), five doses of P2O5 (0 kg ha-1, 40 kg ha-1, 80 kg ha-1, 120 kg ha-1 and 160 kg ha-1) and five doses of K2O (0 kg ha-1, 30 kg ha-1, 60 kg ha-1, 90 kg ha-1 and 120 kg ha-1) were applied to each crop in the same experimental area. The N doses contributed to an increase in the crude protein yield in the five successive crops of maize and sorghum, together with an increase in dry matter and/or protein concentration. Crude protein increased 59.5-312.9 % for both crops. The soils used for the succession cropping system of maize and sorghum for silage had "very high" levels of P and K. Therefore, the P fertilization had no effect on the dry matter or crude protein yield in the first year of cultivation, similarly to the K fertilization during the five successive crop seasons.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 16
Claim · model-written summary
N doses increased crude protein yield in maize.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The N doses contributed to an increase in the crude protein yield in the five successive crops of maize and sorghum, together with an increase in dry matter and/or protein concentration.”
Claim · model-written summary
N doses increased dry matter in maize.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The N doses contributed to an increase in the crude protein yield in the five successive crops of maize and sorghum, together with an increase in dry matter and/or protein concentration.”
Claim · model-written summary
N doses increased protein concentration in maize.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The N doses contributed to an increase in the crude protein yield in the five successive crops of maize and sorghum, together with an increase in dry matter and/or protein concentration.”
Claim · model-written summary
Crude protein increased 59.5-312.9 % in maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crude protein increased 59.5-312.9 % for both crops.”
t0“maize and sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
P fertilization had no effect on dry matter in maize.
- Treatment
- P fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- dry mattere0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- first year of cultivatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore, the P fertilization had no effect on the dry matter or crude protein yield in the first year of cultivation, similarly to the K fertilization during the five successive crop seasons.”
t0“maize and sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
P fertilization had no effect on crude protein yield in maize.
- Treatment
- P fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- crude protein yielde0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- first year of cultivatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore, the P fertilization had no effect on the dry matter or crude protein yield in the first year of cultivation, similarly to the K fertilization during the five successive crop seasons.”
t0“maize and sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
K fertilization had no effect on dry matter in maize.
- Treatment
- K fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- dry mattere0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- five successive crop seasonse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore, the P fertilization had no effect on the dry matter or crude protein yield in the first year of cultivation, similarly to the K fertilization during the five successive crop seasons.”
t0“maize and sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
K fertilization had no effect on crude protein yield in maize.
- Treatment
- K fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- crude protein yielde0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- five successive crop seasonse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore, the P fertilization had no effect on the dry matter or crude protein yield in the first year of cultivation, similarly to the K fertilization during the five successive crop seasons.”
t0“maize and sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
N doses increased crude protein yield in sorghum.
SorghumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The N doses contributed to an increase in the crude protein yield in the five successive crops of maize and sorghum, together with an increase in dry matter and/or protein concentration.”
Claim · model-written summary
N doses increased dry matter in sorghum.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The N doses contributed to an increase in the crude protein yield in the five successive crops of maize and sorghum, together with an increase in dry matter and/or protein concentration.”
Claim · model-written summary
N doses increased protein concentration in sorghum.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The N doses contributed to an increase in the crude protein yield in the five successive crops of maize and sorghum, together with an increase in dry matter and/or protein concentration.”
Claim · model-written summary
Crude protein increased 59.5-312.9 % in sorghum.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crude protein increased 59.5-312.9 % for both crops.”
t0“maize and sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
P fertilization had no effect on dry matter in sorghum.
- Treatment
- P fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- dry mattere0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- first year of cultivatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore, the P fertilization had no effect on the dry matter or crude protein yield in the first year of cultivation, similarly to the K fertilization during the five successive crop seasons.”
t0“maize and sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
P fertilization had no effect on crude protein yield in sorghum.
- Treatment
- P fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- crude protein yielde0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- first year of cultivatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore, the P fertilization had no effect on the dry matter or crude protein yield in the first year of cultivation, similarly to the K fertilization during the five successive crop seasons.”
t0“maize and sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
K fertilization had no effect on dry matter in sorghum.
- Treatment
- K fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- dry mattere0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- five successive crop seasonse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore, the P fertilization had no effect on the dry matter or crude protein yield in the first year of cultivation, similarly to the K fertilization during the five successive crop seasons.”
t0“maize and sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
K fertilization had no effect on crude protein yield in sorghum.
- Treatment
- K fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- crude protein yielde0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- five successive crop seasonse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore, the P fertilization had no effect on the dry matter or crude protein yield in the first year of cultivation, similarly to the K fertilization during the five successive crop seasons.”
t0“maize and sorghum”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · quality: protein · SorghumResults differ
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 papers →nitrogen · growth · SorghumResults differ
80 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
89 papers more in this group
See all 93 papers →fertilization · growth · SorghumResults differ
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 104 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
116 papers more in this group
See all 120 papers →fertilization · quality: protein · SorghumPositive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →nitrogen · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
163 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
177 papers more in this group
See all 181 papers →fertilization · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 236 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
258 papers more in this group
See all 262 papers →nitrogen · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
618 papers in the same direction as this paper · 115 in the opposite direction · 14 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
744 papers more in this group
See all 748 papers →fertilization · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
168 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,196 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,361 papers more in this group
See all 1,365 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.