Paper · 2023 · Agronomy Journal

Cutting schedule and species composition to improve energy‐to‐protein ratios in alfalfa‐based mixtures

Gilles Bélanger; Gaëtan F. Tremblay; Marie‐Noëlle Thivierge; et al.

5
claims
7
verbatim quotes
1
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Abstract Energy‐to‐protein ratios have been suggested as a potential forage attribute related to nitrogen (N) use efficiency in dairy cows but how these ratios vary with the cutting management of alfalfa‐based mixtures is poorly known. Our objective was to determine the effect of cutting schedules of alfalfa‐based mixtures and their species composition on two forage energy‐to‐protein ratios from a large number of samples from four field experiments with previously published results on forage dry matter yield and nutritive value. The two energy‐to‐protein ratios were (1) nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC) to crude protein (CP), NFC/CP, and (2) NFC to the sum of nonprotein N (NPN) and rapidly degradable protein fraction (PB1), NFC/(NPN + PB1). Cutting alfalfa‐based mixtures at the early bloom stage rather than at the early bud stage of alfalfa and taking a fall harvest increased mostly the NFC/CP ratio. Including at least one grass species with alfalfa had variable effects on the two ratios. Although several grass species were tested, we cannot conclude on the best grass species to use. Observed increases in the energy‐to‐protein ratios, however, were relatively small (<8%) and not always consistent in different experiments. Because the relative changes in the energy (NFC) and protein (CP or NPN + PB1) components of the ratios often varied in the same direction when induced by cutting schedules or the presence of grasses with alfalfa, opportunities to improve energy‐to‐protein ratios with those practices remain limited.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cutting alfalfa-based mixtures at early bloom rather than early bud stage of alfalfa increased mostly the NFC/CP ratio.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae1
Treatment
Cutting alfalfa‐based mixtures at the early bloom stagee1
Outcome
NFC/CP ratioe1
Direction
increasede1
Comparator
the early bud stage of alfalfae1

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Cutting alfalfa‐based mixtures at the early bloom stage rather than at the early bud stage of alfalfa and taking a fall harvest increased mostly the NFC/CP ratio”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 746–907 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Taking a fall harvest increased mostly the NFC/CP ratio of alfalfa-based mixtures.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae1
Treatment
taking a fall harveste1
Outcome
NFC/CP ratioe1
Direction
increasede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Cutting alfalfa‐based mixtures at the early bloom stage rather than at the early bud stage of alfalfa and taking a fall harvest increased mostly the NFC/CP ratio”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 746–907 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Including at least one grass species with alfalfa had variable effects on the two energy-to-protein ratios.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae1
Treatment
Including at least one grass species with alfalfae1
Outcome
the two ratiose1
Direction
variable effectse1

Not reportedComparator

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Including at least one grass species with alfalfa had variable effects on the two ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 909–997 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Observed increases in the energy-to-protein ratios were relatively small, below 8%.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativat0
Outcome
increases in the energy‐to‐protein ratiose1
Value
<8%e1

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Observed increases in the energy‐to‐protein ratios, however, were relatively small (<8%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1096–1184 · show in text ↑
t0

“alfalfa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–87 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Opportunities to improve energy-to-protein ratios through cutting schedules or grass inclusion remain limited.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativat0
Outcome
opportunities to improve energy‐to‐protein ratios with those practices remain limitede1

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e1

“opportunities to improve energy‐to‐protein ratios with those practices remain limited”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1451–1536 · show in text ↑
t0

“alfalfa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–87 · show in text ↑

pruning · quality: sugar starch · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 3 positive, 6 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

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.