Abstract
Three sorghum hybrid types were used to make six silages in the fall of 1983. Eight silage rations were compared using 160 steer calves in an 84-day growing trial. Using forage sorghum silage as a base (100), grain sorghum silage had a feeding value of 133, and nonheading sorghum silage 89, when evaluated for comparative rates and efficiencies of gain. Silages from concrete stave silos produced faster and more efficient steer gains than silages from Silopress® bags. Rolling the grain sorghum silages at feeding time to break 95% of the grain significantly improved steer performance. The feeding value of corn silage was not enhanced by processing.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Grain sorghum silage had a feeding value of 133 relative to forage sorghum silage (100) for steer gain.
- Treatment
- grain sorghum silagee1
- Outcome
- feeding valuee1
- Direction
- higherinferrede1
- Value
- 133e1
- Comparator
- forage sorghum silagee1
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Using forage sorghum silage as a base (100), grain sorghum silage had a feeding value of 133, and nonheading sorghum silage 89, when evaluated for comparative rates and efficiencies of gain”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonheading sorghum silage had a feeding value of 89 relative to forage sorghum silage (100) for steer gain.
- Treatment
- nonheading sorghum silagee1
- Outcome
- feeding valuee1
- Direction
- lowerinferrede1
- Value
- 89e1
- Comparator
- forage sorghum silagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Using forage sorghum silage as a base (100), grain sorghum silage had a feeding value of 133, and nonheading sorghum silage 89, when evaluated for comparative rates and efficiencies of gain”
Claim · model-written summary
Silages from concrete stave silos produced faster and more efficient steer gains than silages from Silopress bags.
- Treatment
- concrete stave silose2
- Outcome
- steer gainse2
- Direction
- faster and more efficiente2
- Comparator
- Silopresse2
Not reportedValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Three sorghum hybrid types were used to make six silages in the fall of 1983”
e2“Silages from concrete stave silos produced faster and more efficient steer gains than silages from Silopress® bags”
Claim · model-written summary
Rolling grain sorghum silages at feeding time to break 95% of the grain significantly improved steer performance.
- Treatment
- Rolling the grain sorghum silages at feeding time to break 95% of the graine3
- Outcome
- steer performancee3
- Direction
- improvede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Rolling the grain sorghum silages at feeding time to break 95% of the grain significantly improved steer performance”
Claim · model-written summary
Processing did not enhance the feeding value of corn silage.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse4 - Treatment
- processinge4
- Outcome
- feeding valuee4
- Direction
- not enhancede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The feeding value of corn silage was not enhanced by processing”
The same questions in other papers
processing · pest · SorghumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.