Abstract
Abstract Although grazing vegetative winter annual cereals is common throughout the Southern Plains, it generally has not been considered in the northern United States. This research aimed to evaluate the fall forage yield and nutritive value of winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), rye ( Secale cereale L.), and triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )], cultivars in central Wisconsin. The trial was conducted over 3 yr in a randomized complete block design. Plots were established on 15 Aug. 2017, 13 Aug. 2018, and 1 Aug. 2019. Treatments consisted of a factorial arrangement of three winter cereal species (rye, triticale and wheat) and four targeted fall harvest dates (15 October, 1 November, 15 November, and 1 December). Fall yields ranged from 1,819 to 1,994, 465 to 957, and 1,144 to 1,357 lb dry matter (DM) acre –1 across species during 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively, but consistent advantages for any species were difficult to discern. There was little evidence that fall yields were improved by delaying the harvest date beyond 15 October. Although the nutritive value of winter cereals was excellent, variations in net energy of lactation (NE L ) were positively correlated with water‐soluble carbohydrates for 2018 ( r = 0.57) and 2019 ( r = 0.46). Whole‐plant ash was negatively associated with NE L , yielding significant correlations for 2017 ( r = –0.97), 2018 ( r = –0.88), and 2019 ( r = –0.66). Spring yields of cereal rye were reduced compared with other species in 2019 and 2020 but no differences were detected in 2018.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Fall forage yields ranged from 1,819 to 1,994 lb DM acre−1 in 2017.
- Taxon
- winter rye, wheat, and triticale
Secale cereale
Triticum aestivum
×Triticosecalet0 - Outcome
- Fall yieldse0
- Value
- 1,819 to 1,994e0
- Qualifier
- 2017e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fall yields ranged from 1,819 to 1,994, 465 to 957, and 1,144 to 1,357 lb dry matter (DM) acre –1 across species during 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively”
t0“winter rye, wheat, and triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Fall forage yields ranged from 465 to 957 lb DM acre−1 in 2018.
- Taxon
- winter rye, wheat, and triticaleSecale cerealeTriticum aestivum×Triticosecalet0
- Outcome
- Fall yieldse0
- Value
- 465 to 957e0
- Qualifier
- 2018e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fall yields ranged from 1,819 to 1,994, 465 to 957, and 1,144 to 1,357 lb dry matter (DM) acre –1 across species during 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively”
t0“winter rye, wheat, and triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Fall forage yields ranged from 1,144 to 1,357 lb DM acre−1 in 2019.
- Taxon
- winter rye, wheat, and triticaleSecale cerealeTriticum aestivum×Triticosecalet0
- Outcome
- Fall yieldse0
- Value
- 1,144 to 1,357e0
- Qualifier
- 2019e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fall yields ranged from 1,819 to 1,994, 465 to 957, and 1,144 to 1,357 lb dry matter (DM) acre –1 across species during 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively”
t0“winter rye, wheat, and triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
No cereal species had a consistent fall yield advantage.
- Taxon
- winter rye, wheat, and triticaleSecale cerealeTriticum aestivum×Triticosecalet0
- Outcome
- consistent advantages for any speciese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“consistent advantages for any species were difficult to discern.”
t0“winter rye, wheat, and triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Delaying harvest beyond 15 October showed little evidence of improved fall yield.
- Taxon
- winter rye, wheat, and triticaleSecale cerealeTriticum aestivum×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- delaying the harvest date beyond 15 Octobere0
- Outcome
- fall yieldse0
- Direction
- little evidence that fall yields were improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was little evidence that fall yields were improved by delaying the harvest date beyond 15 October.”
t0“winter rye, wheat, and triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter cereal nutritive value was excellent.
Verbatim
e0“the nutritive value of winter cereals was excellent”
Claim · model-written summary
Net energy of lactation correlated positively with water-soluble carbohydrates in 2018 (r = 0.57).
Verbatim
e0“variations in net energy of lactation (NE L ) were positively correlated with water‐soluble carbohydrates for 2018 ( r = 0.57)”
e1“variations in net energy of lactation (NE L ) were positively correlated with water‐soluble carbohydrates for 2018 ( r = 0.57)”
e2“the nutritive value of winter cereals was excellent”
Claim · model-written summary
Net energy of lactation correlated positively with water-soluble carbohydrates in 2019 (r = 0.46).
Verbatim
e0“variations in net energy of lactation (NE L ) were positively correlated with water‐soluble carbohydrates for 2018 ( r = 0.57) and 2019 ( r = 0.46).”
e1“variations in net energy of lactation (NE L ) were positively correlated with water‐soluble carbohydrates for 2018 ( r = 0.57) and 2019 ( r = 0.46).”
e2“the nutritive value of winter cereals was excellent”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole-plant ash correlated negatively with net energy of lactation in 2017 (r = −0.97).
Verbatim
e0“Whole‐plant ash was negatively associated with NE L , yielding significant correlations for 2017 ( r = –0.97), 2018 ( r = –0.88), and 2019 ( r = –0.66).”
e1“Whole‐plant ash was negatively associated with NE L , yielding significant correlations for 2017 ( r = –0.97), 2018 ( r = –0.88), and 2019 ( r = –0.66).”
e2“the nutritive value of winter cereals was excellent”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole-plant ash correlated negatively with net energy of lactation in 2018 (r = −0.88).
Verbatim
e0“Whole‐plant ash was negatively associated with NE L , yielding significant correlations for 2017 ( r = –0.97), 2018 ( r = –0.88), and 2019 ( r = –0.66).”
e1“Whole‐plant ash was negatively associated with NE L , yielding significant correlations for 2017 ( r = –0.97), 2018 ( r = –0.88), and 2019 ( r = –0.66).”
e2“the nutritive value of winter cereals was excellent”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole-plant ash correlated negatively with net energy of lactation in 2019 (r = −0.66).
Verbatim
e0“Whole‐plant ash was negatively associated with NE L , yielding significant correlations for 2017 ( r = –0.97), 2018 ( r = –0.88), and 2019 ( r = –0.66).”
e1“Whole‐plant ash was negatively associated with NE L , yielding significant correlations for 2017 ( r = –0.97), 2018 ( r = –0.88), and 2019 ( r = –0.66).”
e2“the nutritive value of winter cereals was excellent”
Claim · model-written summary
Cereal rye spring yield was reduced relative to other species in 2019 and 2020.
Verbatim
e0“Spring yields of cereal rye were reduced compared with other species in 2019 and 2020”
Claim · model-written summary
No spring yield differences among species were detected in 2018.
- Taxon
- winter rye, wheat, and triticaleSecale cerealeTriticum aestivum×Triticosecalet0
- Outcome
- no differences were detectede0
- Qualifier
- 2018e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no differences were detected in 2018.”
t0“winter rye, wheat, and triticale”
The same questions in other papers
harvest time · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
harvest time · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
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.