Abstract
This paper reports and discusses the results of 4 years of trials (1985-1988) involving 2 farmlets, one receiving 3 nitrogen applications (50 kg /ha) in autumn, winter and spring (+N) and one receiving no N fertiliser (-N). Stocking rags were 3.3 animals/ha on -N farmlet and 4.3 animals/ha on the +N farmlet for the first 3 years, with the objective being to utilise the extra N-boosted grass with extra animals/ha but not to sacrifice individual animal performance. In the fourth year the stocking rates were kept the same on each farmlet (3.3 animals/ha) in an endeavour to utilise the extra grass grown on the +N farmlet by way of increased per head performance. In 2 of the 3 years (1985 and 1987) where the +N farmlet supported the higher stocking rate, liveweight gain (LWG) did not differ between animals. In 1986 the extra animals on the -l-N farmlet had a lower LWG, whereas in 1988 the LWGs were similar for the 2 farmlets stocked at the same rate. The apparent DM responses (kg DM/kg N applied) ranged from 2 to 12. The rates of N fertiliser used in this trial do not appear to result in economic increases in pasture production for the beef production system reported here. Nitrogen fertiliser did not reduce the clover content of pastures rotationally grazed by beef cattle. Keywords beef production, nitrogen fertiliser, pasture composition, livewieght gain, economics.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Liveweight gain did not differ between animals on the +N and -N farmlets in 1985 and 1987
Verbatim
e1“utilise the extra N-boosted grass with extra animals/ha”
e2“one receiving 3 nitrogen applications (50 kg /ha) in autumn, winter and spring (+N) and one receiving no N fertiliser (-N)”
e3“In 2 of the 3 years (1985 and 1987) where the +N farmlet supported the higher stocking rate, liveweight gain (LWG) did not differ between animals”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1986 extra animals on the -l-N farmlet had a lower liveweight gain
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“utilise the extra N-boosted grass with extra animals/ha”
e4“In 1986 the extra animals on the -l-N farmlet had a lower LWG”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1988 liveweight gains were similar for the two farmlets stocked at the same rate
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“utilise the extra N-boosted grass with extra animals/ha”
e5“in 1988 the LWGs were similar for the 2 farmlets stocked at the same rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Apparent dry matter responses to nitrogen ranged from 2 to 12 kg DM per kg N applied
Verbatim
e1“utilise the extra N-boosted grass with extra animals/ha”
e6“The apparent DM responses (kg DM/kg N applied) ranged from 2 to 12”
Claim · model-written summary
The nitrogen rates used do not appear to result in economic increases in pasture production
- Taxon
- pasturee7
- Treatment
- rates of N fertiliser used in this triale7
- Outcome
- economic increases in pasture productione7
- Direction
- do not appear to result ine7
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e7“The rates of N fertiliser used in this trial do not appear to result in economic increases in pasture production for the beef production system reported here”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertiliser did not reduce the clover content of rotationally grazed pastures
- Treatment
- Nitrogen fertilisere1
- Outcome
- clover contente1
- Direction
- did not reducee1
- Qualifier
- rotationally grazed by beef cattlee1
TrifoliumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Nitrogen fertiliser did not reduce the clover content of pastures rotationally grazed by beef cattle”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · molecular: metabolites · TrifoliumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.