Abstract
An experiment was conducted to study the biometric parameters of Super Napier green fodder along with assessment of chemical composition, cell wall constituents and fodder characteristics at different days of harvest at Livestock Research Station, Siddarampuram, in Anantapur district. The fodder characteristics of Super Napier i.e., plant height (cm), basal circumference (cm), tillers per plant (number), leaves per tiller (number), leaves per plant (number) increased as age advanced showing a significant difference (P < 0.01) at 15, 30, 45 and 60 days of harvesting. The mean proximate values of Super Napier fodder for DM, CP, CF, EE, TA and NFE were 22.43 ± 2.35, 9.94 ± 1.04, 32.66 ± 1.63, 1.94 ± 0.23, 11.32 ± 1.23 and 44.11 ± 1.47 per cent, respectively. The mean cell wall constituents of NDF, ADF, Hemicellulose, Cellulose, ADL and Silica were 63.64 ± 1.51, 37.90 ± 1.54, 25.74 ±1.47, 27.31 ± 1.74, 8.26 ± 1.31 and 3.38 ± 0.28 per cent, respectively. The leaf area index noticed at the time of harvest was 9.43. The leaf to stem ratio observed at 15th, 30th, 45th and 60th day of harvest was 1.50 ± 0.22, 0.65 ± 0.05, 0.43 ± 0.03 and 0.22 ± 0.11, respectively. Highest leaf to stem ratio was recorded at 15 days of age and lowest at 60 days of age.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Plant height, basal circumference and tillers per plant increased significantly with age.
Verbatim
e0“The fodder characteristics of Super Napier i.e., plant height (cm), basal circumference (cm), tillers per plant (number), leaves per tiller (number), leaves per plant (number) increased as age advanced showing a significant difference (P < 0.01) at 15, 30, 45 and 60 days of harvesting.”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaves per tiller and leaves per plant increased significantly with age.
Verbatim
e0“The fodder characteristics of Super Napier i.e., plant height (cm), basal circumference (cm), tillers per plant (number), leaves per tiller (number), leaves per plant (number) increased as age advanced showing a significant difference (P < 0.01) at 15, 30, 45 and 60 days of harvesting.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean DM was 22.43 ± 2.35 per cent.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The mean proximate values of Super Napier fodder for DM, CP, CF, EE, TA and NFE were 22.43 ± 2.35, 9.94 ± 1.04, 32.66 ± 1.63, 1.94 ± 0.23, 11.32 ± 1.23 and 44.11 ± 1.47 per cent, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean CP was 9.94 ± 1.04 per cent.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The mean proximate values of Super Napier fodder for DM, CP, CF, EE, TA and NFE were 22.43 ± 2.35, 9.94 ± 1.04, 32.66 ± 1.63, 1.94 ± 0.23, 11.32 ± 1.23 and 44.11 ± 1.47 per cent, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean CF was 32.66 ± 1.63 per cent.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The mean proximate values of Super Napier fodder for DM, CP, CF, EE, TA and NFE were 22.43 ± 2.35, 9.94 ± 1.04, 32.66 ± 1.63, 1.94 ± 0.23, 11.32 ± 1.23 and 44.11 ± 1.47 per cent, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean EE was 1.94 ± 0.23 per cent.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The mean proximate values of Super Napier fodder for DM, CP, CF, EE, TA and NFE were 22.43 ± 2.35, 9.94 ± 1.04, 32.66 ± 1.63, 1.94 ± 0.23, 11.32 ± 1.23 and 44.11 ± 1.47 per cent, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean TA was 11.32 ± 1.23 per cent.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The mean proximate values of Super Napier fodder for DM, CP, CF, EE, TA and NFE were 22.43 ± 2.35, 9.94 ± 1.04, 32.66 ± 1.63, 1.94 ± 0.23, 11.32 ± 1.23 and 44.11 ± 1.47 per cent, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean NFE was 44.11 ± 1.47 per cent.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The mean proximate values of Super Napier fodder for DM, CP, CF, EE, TA and NFE were 22.43 ± 2.35, 9.94 ± 1.04, 32.66 ± 1.63, 1.94 ± 0.23, 11.32 ± 1.23 and 44.11 ± 1.47 per cent, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean NDF was 63.64 ± 1.51 per cent.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The mean cell wall constituents of NDF, ADF, Hemicellulose, Cellulose, ADL and Silica were 63.64 ± 1.51, 37.90 ± 1.54, 25.74 ±1.47, 27.31 ± 1.74, 8.26 ± 1.31 and 3.38 ± 0.28 per cent, respectively.”
t0“Super Napier”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean ADF was 37.90 ± 1.54 per cent.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The mean cell wall constituents of NDF, ADF, Hemicellulose, Cellulose, ADL and Silica were 63.64 ± 1.51, 37.90 ± 1.54, 25.74 ±1.47, 27.31 ± 1.74, 8.26 ± 1.31 and 3.38 ± 0.28 per cent, respectively.”
t0“Super Napier”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean hemicellulose was 25.74 ±1.47 per cent.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The mean cell wall constituents of NDF, ADF, Hemicellulose, Cellulose, ADL and Silica were 63.64 ± 1.51, 37.90 ± 1.54, 25.74 ±1.47, 27.31 ± 1.74, 8.26 ± 1.31 and 3.38 ± 0.28 per cent, respectively.”
t0“Super Napier”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean cellulose was 27.31 ± 1.74 per cent.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The mean cell wall constituents of NDF, ADF, Hemicellulose, Cellulose, ADL and Silica were 63.64 ± 1.51, 37.90 ± 1.54, 25.74 ±1.47, 27.31 ± 1.74, 8.26 ± 1.31 and 3.38 ± 0.28 per cent, respectively.”
t0“Super Napier”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean ADL was 8.26 ± 1.31 per cent.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The mean cell wall constituents of NDF, ADF, Hemicellulose, Cellulose, ADL and Silica were 63.64 ± 1.51, 37.90 ± 1.54, 25.74 ±1.47, 27.31 ± 1.74, 8.26 ± 1.31 and 3.38 ± 0.28 per cent, respectively.”
t0“Super Napier”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean silica was 3.38 ± 0.28 per cent.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The mean cell wall constituents of NDF, ADF, Hemicellulose, Cellulose, ADL and Silica were 63.64 ± 1.51, 37.90 ± 1.54, 25.74 ±1.47, 27.31 ± 1.74, 8.26 ± 1.31 and 3.38 ± 0.28 per cent, respectively.”
t0“Super Napier”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area index at harvest was 9.43.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The leaf area index noticed at the time of harvest was 9.43.”
t0“Super Napier”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf to stem ratio at day 15 was 1.50 ± 0.22, the highest observed.
Verbatim
e0“The leaf to stem ratio observed at 15th, 30th, 45th and 60th day of harvest was 1.50 ± 0.22, 0.65 ± 0.05, 0.43 ± 0.03 and 0.22 ± 0.11, respectively.”
e1“Highest leaf to stem ratio was recorded at 15 days of age and lowest at 60 days of age.”
t0“Super Napier”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf to stem ratio at day 30 was 0.65 ± 0.05.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The leaf to stem ratio observed at 15th, 30th, 45th and 60th day of harvest was 1.50 ± 0.22, 0.65 ± 0.05, 0.43 ± 0.03 and 0.22 ± 0.11, respectively.”
t0“Super Napier”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf to stem ratio at day 45 was 0.43 ± 0.03.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The leaf to stem ratio observed at 15th, 30th, 45th and 60th day of harvest was 1.50 ± 0.22, 0.65 ± 0.05, 0.43 ± 0.03 and 0.22 ± 0.11, respectively.”
t0“Super Napier”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf to stem ratio at day 60 was 0.22 ± 0.11, the lowest observed.
Verbatim
e0“The leaf to stem ratio observed at 15th, 30th, 45th and 60th day of harvest was 1.50 ± 0.22, 0.65 ± 0.05, 0.43 ± 0.03 and 0.22 ± 0.11, respectively.”
e1“Highest leaf to stem ratio was recorded at 15 days of age and lowest at 60 days of age.”
t0“Super Napier”