Abstract
Abstract The practice of grazing winter cereals before heading and subsequently harvesting the forage is common in some countries. Triticale (× Triticosecale Wittmack) is particularly interesting due to its nutritional characteristics, and forage yield and quality are strongly influenced by agronomic techniques. The effect of two modes of utilization (cut at heading stage and cut during winter grazing simulation with regrowth cut at heading stage), three nitrogen (N) fertilization levels [0 and 100 kg ha −1 split in two phases; and 100 kg ha −1 before sowing, using a fertilizer with 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) as a nitrification inhibitor (NI)] and mycorrhizal fungus inoculation (mixed inoculation of Glomus intraradices and Glomus moseae ) on forage yield and quality, protein fractions and in vitro digestibility of triticale was determined in southern Italy. Mode of utilization and fertilization affected significantly forage yield and quality, while mycorrhizal fungus inoculation influenced positively some quality parameters. Cutting at heading stage of triticale led to high dry matter (DM) production compared to the winter cut simulating grazing, but no differences in protein yield (PY). N fertilization increased total DM and PYs, but no differences were reported among the application modalities of N fertilizers. Triticale protein fractions and protein and fiber digestibility were improved by N fertilization. Mycorrhizal fungus inoculation positively influenced forage quality at heading stage, which resulted in more digestible fiber and protein. As a result, when triticale was grown under Mediterranean conditions, mode of utilization and N fertilization resulted in greater forage yield and quality, while mycorrhizal fungus inoculation influenced positively forage nutritional quality parameters.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting at heading produced more dry matter than simulated winter grazing.
- Taxon
- triticale
×Triticosecalee0 - Treatment
- Cutting at heading stagee0
- Outcome
- dry matter (DM) productione0
- Direction
- highe0
- Comparator
- winter cut simulating grazinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cutting at heading stage of triticale led to high dry matter (DM) production compared to the winter cut simulating grazing”
Claim · model-written summary
Protein yield did not differ between the cutting modes.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- cut at heading stagee1
- Outcome
- protein yield (PY)e0
- Direction
- no differencese0
- Comparator
- winter grazing simulatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but no differences in protein yield (PY).”
t0“triticale (×TriticosecaleWittmack)”
e1“two modes of utilization (cut at heading stage and cut during winter grazing simulation with regrowth cut at heading stage)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilization increased total triticale dry matter yield.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- N fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- total DMe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N fertilization increased total DM and PYs”
t0“triticale (×TriticosecaleWittmack)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilization increased triticale protein yield.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- N fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- PYse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N fertilization increased total DM and PYs”
t0“triticale (×TriticosecaleWittmack)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen application modalities did not differ in yield.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- application modalities of N fertilizerse0
- Outcome
- differencese0
- Direction
- no differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no differences were reported among the application modalities of N fertilizers.”
t0“triticale (×TriticosecaleWittmack)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilization improved triticale protein fractions and protein and fiber digestibility.
- Taxon
- Triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- N fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- protein fractions and protein and fiber digestibilitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale protein fractions and protein and fiber digestibility were improved by N fertilization.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculation improved forage quality at heading by making fiber and protein more digestible.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- Mycorrhizal fungus inoculatione0
- Interactor
- Glomus intraradicesRhizophagus intraradicese1symbiont
- Second interactor
- Glomus moseaee1symbiont
- Outcome
- digestible fiber and proteine0
- Direction
- moree0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mycorrhizal fungus inoculation positively influenced forage quality at heading stage, which resulted in more digestible fiber and protein.”
t0“triticale (×TriticosecaleWittmack)”
e1“mixed inoculation of Glomus intraradices and Glomus moseae”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · growth · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
fertilization · quality: protein · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →fertilization · growth · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 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.