Abstract
We investigated the use of four nutrient solutions (organic, organo-mineral, inorganic, and a commercial hydroponics solution that served as a control) on the yield and quality of hydroponically produced maize fodder. The organic, organo-mineral, and inorganic nutrient solutions were formulated from poultry manure, Aleshinloye organo-mineral fertilizer, and NPK 20:10:10, respectively. The nutrient solutions were used to irrigate “Swan-1” maize seeds for 16 days after which herbage yield, water use efficiency, chemical composition, and in vitro variables were determined. Formulated nutrient solutions had no significant (p > 0.05) effect on recorded fodder yield values (0.96 − 1.05 kg/tray). Water use efficiency values ranged from 0.23 to 0.26 kg DM/m3 with no significant (p > 0.05) treatment effect. The organo-mineral nutrient solution decreased crude protein content but increased ash content in the plants. The other treatments had statistically similar (p > 0.05) crude protein and ash values with the control. Recorded crude protein and ash values were 8.88%−13.69% and 5.43%−8.25%, respectively. Plants irrigated with the organo-mineral nutrient solution had consistently higher (p < 0.05) mineral concentration values (3.68, 2.13, 63.60, 13.70, and 5.29 g/kg for Ca, P, K, Mg, and Na); although, P concentration was similar with the control. In vitro gas volumes and dry matter digestibility were not significantly (p > 0.05) affected by the treatments. In conclusion, the formulated organic and organo-mineral nutrient solutions produced plants with similar yield and quality as the inorganic and standard nutrient solutions.
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
Formulated nutrient solutions had no significant effect on hydroponic maize fodder yield (0.96-1.05 kg/tray) relative to the commercial control solution.
- Treatment
- four nutrient solutionse1
- Outcome
- fodder yielde2
- Direction
- no significante2
- Value
- 0.96 − 1.05 kg/traye2
- Comparator
- commercial hydroponics solutione1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize fodder”
e1“four nutrient solutions (organic, organo-mineral, inorganic, and a commercial hydroponics solution that served as a control)”
e2“Formulated nutrient solutions had no significant (p > 0.05) effect on recorded fodder yield values (0.96 − 1.05 kg/tray)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency of maize fodder ranged from 0.23 to 0.26 kg DM/m3 with no significant treatment effect.
- Treatment
- four nutrient solutionse1
- Outcome
- Water use efficiencye2
- Direction
- no significante2
- Value
- 0.23 to 0.26 kg DM/m3e2
- Comparator
- commercial hydroponics solutione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize fodder”
e1“four nutrient solutions (organic, organo-mineral, inorganic, and a commercial hydroponics solution that served as a control)”
e2“Water use efficiency values ranged from 0.23 to 0.26 kg DM/m3 with no significant (p > 0.05) treatment effect”
Claim · model-written summary
The organo-mineral nutrient solution decreased crude protein content in maize fodder.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize fodder”
e2“The organo-mineral nutrient solution decreased crude protein content but increased ash content in the plants”
Claim · model-written summary
The organo-mineral nutrient solution increased ash content in maize fodder.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize fodder”
e2“The organo-mineral nutrient solution decreased crude protein content but increased ash content in the plants”
Claim · model-written summary
The other nutrient solutions had statistically similar crude protein and ash values to the control.
- Treatment
- other treatmentse2
- Outcome
- crude protein and ash valuese2
- Direction
- statistically similare2
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize fodder”
e2“The other treatments had statistically similar (p > 0.05) crude protein and ash values with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize irrigated with the organo-mineral nutrient solution had higher Ca concentration (3.68 g/kg).
- Treatment
- organo-mineral nutrient solutione2
- Outcome
- mineral concentration valuese2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 3.68e2
- Qualifier
- g/kg for Ca, P, K, Mg, and Nae2
- Comparator
- commercial hydroponics solutione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize fodder”
e1“four nutrient solutions (organic, organo-mineral, inorganic, and a commercial hydroponics solution that served as a control)”
e2“Plants irrigated with the organo-mineral nutrient solution had consistently higher (p < 0.05) mineral concentration values (3.68, 2.13, 63.60, 13.70, and 5.29 g/kg for Ca, P, K, Mg, and Na)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize irrigated with the organo-mineral nutrient solution had higher K concentration (63.60 g/kg).
- Treatment
- organo-mineral nutrient solutione2
- Outcome
- mineral concentration valuese2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 63.60e2
- Qualifier
- g/kg for Ca, P, K, Mg, and Nae2
- Comparator
- commercial hydroponics solutione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize fodder”
e1“four nutrient solutions (organic, organo-mineral, inorganic, and a commercial hydroponics solution that served as a control)”
e2“Plants irrigated with the organo-mineral nutrient solution had consistently higher (p < 0.05) mineral concentration values (3.68, 2.13, 63.60, 13.70, and 5.29 g/kg for Ca, P, K, Mg, and Na)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize irrigated with the organo-mineral nutrient solution had higher Mg concentration (13.70 g/kg).
- Treatment
- organo-mineral nutrient solutione2
- Outcome
- mineral concentration valuese2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 13.70e2
- Qualifier
- g/kg for Ca, P, K, Mg, and Nae2
- Comparator
- commercial hydroponics solutione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize fodder”
e1“four nutrient solutions (organic, organo-mineral, inorganic, and a commercial hydroponics solution that served as a control)”
e2“Plants irrigated with the organo-mineral nutrient solution had consistently higher (p < 0.05) mineral concentration values (3.68, 2.13, 63.60, 13.70, and 5.29 g/kg for Ca, P, K, Mg, and Na)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize irrigated with the organo-mineral nutrient solution had higher Na concentration (5.29 g/kg).
- Treatment
- organo-mineral nutrient solutione2
- Outcome
- mineral concentration valuese2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 5.29e2
- Qualifier
- g/kg for Ca, P, K, Mg, and Nae2
- Comparator
- commercial hydroponics solutione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize fodder”
e1“four nutrient solutions (organic, organo-mineral, inorganic, and a commercial hydroponics solution that served as a control)”
e2“Plants irrigated with the organo-mineral nutrient solution had consistently higher (p < 0.05) mineral concentration values (3.68, 2.13, 63.60, 13.70, and 5.29 g/kg for Ca, P, K, Mg, and Na)”
Claim · model-written summary
P concentration (2.13 g/kg) in maize irrigated with the organo-mineral solution was similar to the control.
- Treatment
- organo-mineral nutrient solutione2
- Outcome
- mineral concentration valuese2
- Direction
- similare3
- Value
- 2.13e2
- Qualifier
- g/kg for Ca, P, K, Mg, and Nae2
- Comparator
- commercial hydroponics solutione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize fodder”
e1“four nutrient solutions (organic, organo-mineral, inorganic, and a commercial hydroponics solution that served as a control)”
e2“Plants irrigated with the organo-mineral nutrient solution had consistently higher (p < 0.05) mineral concentration values (3.68, 2.13, 63.60, 13.70, and 5.29 g/kg for Ca, P, K, Mg, and Na)”
e3“P concentration was similar with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
In vitro gas volumes and dry matter digestibility of maize fodder were not significantly affected by the treatments.
- Treatment
- the treatmentse2
- Outcome
- In vitro gas volumes and dry matter digestibilitye2
- Direction
- not significantlye2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize fodder”
e2“In vitro gas volumes and dry matter digestibility were not significantly (p > 0.05) affected by the treatments”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 83 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
89 papers more in this group
See all 93 papers →fertilization · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
88 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
102 papers more in this group
See all 106 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 →fertilization · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,025 papers in the same direction as this paper · 127 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
1,160 papers more in this group
See all 1,164 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
422 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3,485 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.