Abstract
Rising feed and fertilizer costs, climatic uncertainties, and the summer slump in forage production are key challenges for livestock farmers in the Midwest region of the United States. Therefore, this study evaluated the dry matter yield (DMY), forage nutritive value (FNV), water use efficiency (WUE), and economic viability of forage soybean ( Glycine max (L.) Merr) for the Midwest rainfed cropping system. The research aimed to assess the suitability of forage soybean as an alternative summer forage crop that is drought-resilient, require lower inputs, and provide higher yield and forage quality compared to traditional forages. A three-year field experiment (2020-2022) using a randomized complete block design with four replications assessed two planting dates (mid-May, early July) and four growth stages (V2, V3, R1, R3). DMY was significantly influenced by planting dates and growth stages, with optimum planting (mid-May) yielding an average of 13.9 ± 0.5 Mg ha - ¹ at the R3 stage, surpassing late planting (early July) by 51%. Significant variations in FNV parameters were observed between optimum and late planting dates and across different growth stages. Late planting improved forage nutritive value (FNV), with lower acid detergent fiber (ADF) (26% vs. 31%), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) (30% vs. 35%), and lignin (6% vs. 7%), alongside higher in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) (84% vs. 79%) and relative forage quality (RFQ) (237 vs. 197) when harvested at the R3 stage. Crude protein remained stable (19–21%) across growth stages. Overall forage quality (RFV and RFQ) remained stable across growth stages (from V2 to R3), ensuring consistent quality and flexible harvest timing. The forage soybean demonstrated a WUE of 20 kg ha - ¹ mm - ¹ and a net profit of $336 with 32% return on investment per hectare. These results position forage soybean as a drought-resilient, high-yielding, high-quality, and economically viable alternative to traditional forages, addressing seasonal shortages and enhancing sustainability in rainfed systems. Further research, particularly animal feeding trials and long-term soil health impacts, is recommended to validate its potential for widespread adoption.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Mid-May planting yielded 13.9 ± 0.5 Mg ha - ¹ at R3 and exceeded early July planting by 51%.
Verbatim
e0“optimum planting (mid-May) yielding an average of 13.9 ± 0.5 Mg ha - ¹ at the R3 stage, surpassing late planting (early July) by 51%”
t0“forage soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Late planting reduced ADF at R3.
- Taxon
- forage soybeant0
- Treatment
- Late plantinge0
- Outcome
- acid detergent fiber (ADF)e0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 26%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Late planting improved forage nutritive value (FNV), with lower acid detergent fiber (ADF) (26% vs. 31%)”
t0“forage soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Late planting reduced NDF.
Verbatim
e0“neutral detergent fiber (NDF) (30% vs. 35%)”
t0“forage soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Late planting reduced lignin.
Verbatim
e0“lignin (6% vs. 7%)”
t0“forage soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Late planting increased IVDMD at R3.
Verbatim
e0“higher in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) (84% vs. 79%)”
t0“forage soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Late planting increased RFQ at R3.
Verbatim
e0“relative forage quality (RFQ) (237 vs. 197)”
t0“forage soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Crude protein remained stable across stages.
Verbatim
e0“Crude protein remained stable (19–21%) across growth stages”
t0“forage soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Overall forage quality remained stable from V2 to R3.
Verbatim
e0“Overall forage quality (RFV and RFQ) remained stable across growth stages (from V2 to R3)”
t0“forage soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage soybean WUE was 20 kg ha - ¹ mm - ¹.
Verbatim
e0“forage soybean demonstrated a WUE of 20 kg ha - ¹ mm - ¹”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage soybean net profit was $336.
Verbatim
e0“net profit of $336”
t0“forage soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage soybean return on investment was 32% per hectare.
Verbatim
e0“32% return on investment per hectare”
t0“forage soybean”
The same questions in other papers
sowing time · quality: grain · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.