Paper · 2016 · Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports

Determining Profitable Annual Forage Rotations

J. D. Holman; T. Roberts; S. Maxwell; et al.

4
claims
4
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Producers are interested in growing annual forages, yet the region lacks proven recom­mended crop rotations such as those for grain crops. Forage production is important to the region’s livestock and dairy industries and is becoming increasingly important as irrigation well capacity declines. Forages require less water than grain crops and may al­low for increased cropping intensity and opportunistic cropping. A study was initiated in 2013 comparing several 1-, 3-, and 4-year forage rotations with no-till and minimum-till (min-till). Data presented are from 2013 through 2015. Winter triticale yields were increased by tillage. Double-crop forage sorghum yielded 23% less than full-season for­age sorghum across years. Oats failed to make a crop in 2013 and do not appear to be as drought tolerant as spring triticale or forage sorghum. Subsequent years will be used to compare forage rotations and profitability.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage increased winter triticale yield.

Taxon
Winter triticale×Triticosecalee0
Treatment
tillagee0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

x Triticosecale
×Triticosecale · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMiquel Pujol Palol · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Winter triticale yields were increased by tillage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 583–633 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Double crop forage sorghum yielded 23% less than full season forage sorghum.

Taxon
forage sorghume0
Treatment
Double-crope0
Outcome
yieldede0
Direction
lesse0
Value
23%e0
Qualifier
across yearse0
Comparator
full-season for­age sorghume0

Verbatim

e0

“Double-crop forage sorghum yielded 23% less than full-season for­age sorghum across years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 634–724 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Oats failed to produce a crop in 2013.

Outcome
failed to make a crope0
Qualifier
in 2013e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Oats failed to make a crop in 2013”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 725–759 · show in text ↑
Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Oats appeared less drought tolerant than spring triticale or forage sorghum.

Outcome
drought tolerante0
Direction
do not appear to be ase0
Comparator
spring triticale or forage sorghume0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Oats failed to make a crop in 2013 and do not appear to be as drought tolerant as spring triticale or forage sorghum.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 725–842 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 15 positive, 5 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 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.